Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http : //books . google . com/|
'^fBK^
a~
lOriiHaal height rrrlwling mllrrii.
OUE BIBLE
AND THE
ANCIENT MANUSCKIPTS
BEING A
Distoru ot tbe xrejt an5 its XTransIations
BY
FREDERIC GfKENYON, M.A., D.Litt.
Son, PkJD, of Halle University ; Late Fellow of Magdalen Colleffe, Oxford ;
Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts y British Museum,
WITH 29 FACSIMILES
THIRTY EDITION
EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE
liONDON— GREAT NEW STREET, FLEET STREET, E.G.
Eddtbusoh, Glasck)w, Melboubite, Stdnbt, and New York
1898
32
.K37
L O N D O IT :
EYBE AND SPOTTISWOODK.
Her Majesty's Pi-inters,
DOWNS PARK ROAD, HACKNEY, N.E.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
TN this edition the body of the work remains unaltered,
-■- but a list o£ corrections and additions has been
inserted at the beginning, and an appendix on recent
Biblical discoveries at the end. In the latter a general
survey is given of the principal discoveries of the last
twenty years, including some which have only an indirect
bearing upon textual questions, but in other respects are
of considerable interest to Biblical students. Three ad-
ditional plates are also given, two of which relate to
discoveries mentioned in the appendix;' while the third
represents an important manuscript of the Septuagint
which has recently been made accessible by means of
a complete photogi-aphic facsmxile. I should like to
take this opportunity of thanking many friendly critics,
known to me and unknown, to whose suggestions most
of the corrections and additions inserted in the present
edition are due.
F. G. K.
Augicst, 1898.
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
Page 34, note 1. For Gkreek read Latin.
Page 36, line 19. For a.d. 102-117 read a.d. 117-138.
Page 60, note. The Revised Version of the Apocrypha was published in
1895, but it is, of course, without the critical and explanatory notes which in
the Variorum Apocrypha enable the reader to see the reasons for the changes
made.
Page bb, lines 3-7. Some fragments of a manuscript containing five out of
the six columns of the Hexapla (the Hebrew text being omitted) and one
additional column have recently been discovered in Italy. ^ Appendix.
Page 56, lines 9, 10. Some fragments of Aquila's version were discovered
during the autumn of 1897 by Mr. F. C. Burkitt, among a mass of manu-
scripts brought to Cambridge by Dr. Schechter from a Gheniza in Cairo,
and have lately been published. See Appendix.
Page 56, line 22. For third read fourth.
Page 57, line 11. For Maximus read Maximinus.
Page 61, last line. For eighth read ninth.
Page 62, line 4. Add an additional leaf, containing 42. 19 — 43. 13 is in
the Cambridge University Library, one side being written in a cursive hand.
Page 62, lines 12-25. A complete facsimile of the Codex Sarravianus has
lately been published (Leyden, 1897, edited by Omont). From this the plate
which has been added in the present edition (Va.) has been taken, giving (in
reduced form) the page containing Deut. 16. 22 — ^17, 8. Asterisks will be seen
in the margins of both columns. That near the bottom of the first column
indicates that words corresponding to " and thou hast heard of it" in 17. 4
were not found in the original Greek of the Septuagint, but were inserted
by Origen to make it correspond with the Hebrew. Similarly the asterisks
in the second column show that in verse 5 the words ** which have committed
that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman," were not in
the original Septuagint, but were inserted by Origen from the Hebrew. Both
passages occur in our Authorised Version, which is, of course, taken from
the Hebrew; but not in the best manuscripts of the Septuagint, though
A and F have the second passage, which is a sign that they have been affected
by Hexaplar influences.
Page 66, line 20, and note. The numbers of the cursives described in
Holmes and Parsons run up to 313, but they only begin at fourteen, the first
thirteen numbers being reserved for the uncials. Hence the nominal total of
cursives is only 300, and from this figure considerable reductions have to be
ii ADDITIONS AND COBBECTIONS.
made. Nine of them (23, 27, 29, 43, 166, 188, 190, 262, 294) are really
uncials, and several manuscripts are described more than once under dijfferent
numbers. Thus: 33 = 97 = 238, 41 = 42, 56 = 64, 63 = 129, 73 = 237,
89 = 239, 94=131, 109 = 302, 130 = 144, 186 = 220, 221 = 276,234=311,
294 = P. These deductions bring down the total of the cursives to 278. On
the other hand, many manuscripts are now extant which were not known
to Holmes and jj^arsons.
Page 7o, note. The llejbrcw original of Ecclesiasticus is no longer wholly
lost, a portion of it having been discovered and published by Messrs. Cowley
and Neubauer, of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. See Appendix. Further
portions are said to have been since identified at Cambridge.
Page 76, line 12. The Bohairic Old Testament is not complete, but the
greater part of it is extant.
Page 78, line 1. For earliest read almost the earliest. The original Syriac
version is probably older than the Latin.
Page 79, line 6. The principal of these three manuscripts, the Lyons
Pentateuch, has lately received an important addition, M. Delisle, the Director
of the Biblioth^que National© at Paris, having identified a number of leaves
which were offered for sale by a private person as forming part of this
manuscript. The newly discovered leaves contain the text of Deut. U, 4 —
Judges 11^ 21, thus showing that the manuscript was not a Pentateuch but a
Heptateuch, or, more probably (since the book of Kuth is normally attached to
that of Judges), an Octateuch. The manuscript is of the 6th century, very
finely written, and contains an Old Latin text, which is said to be of an African
type. From the Book of Leviticus onwards it is now practically complete,
and there are considerable portions of Genesis and Exodus.
Page 93, lines 17-22. The case of those who argued that the books of the
New Testament were mostly written in the second century has been practically
surrendered by the great German ecclesiastical historian, Harnack, who, in a
remarkable preface to his " Chronology of the Early Christian Literature,"
vol. ii. (1897), declares that, with very few exceptions, the traditional dates for
them may be accepted as approximately correct.
Page 102, lines 13, 14. For D (of the Gospels) read D (of the Gospels and
Acts) ; and for Ej (Acts and Catholic Epistles) read E2 (Acts).
Page 105, line 8. For flourished about A.D. 178 read wrote about a.d. 185.
Page 108, line 1. After A i7isert (in the Gospels).
Page 109, lines 2-4. For who was bishop of Antioch in Syria at the end of
the fourth century read most of whose life, in the latter part of the fourth
century, was passed at Antioch in Syria.
Page 129, line 18. For A.n. 376 read. a.d. 373.
Page 132, line 15. For having been written about the end of the first
century read one having been written about the end of the first century, and
the other before the middle of the second.
ADDmom AND CORRECTIONS. in
Page 134, line 15. For 4 read 14 ; and for Catholic read Pastoral.
Page 137, line 15. For 11. 19, 20 read 11. 13, 14 ; ami in line 24 for 20
read 14.
Page 140, line 15. The Cambridge University Press is about to issue a
complete facsimile of the Codex Beisae.
Page 147, after line 16. Within the last year or two Codex N has acquired
a right to be included in this list. See Appendix.
Page 149, line 21. For Mark's read Luke's.
Page 156, line 16. For further considerations on the Sinaitic Syriac MS.,
and the Syrian versions generally (in connexion with Tatian's Diatcssaron), see
Appendix.
Page 159, line 7. Of the original Philoxenian version the only known
remains, until quite lately, were the four minor Catholic Epistles (which had
been taken from this source to supply the omission in the Peshitto) and a few
fragments of Isaiah and St. Paul's Epistles. The Apocalypse (which was also
wanting in the Peshitto) was supplied from the Harkleian version ; but recently
another version of it has been brought to light by Dr. (rwynn, of Trinity
College, Dublin, from a twelfth-century manuscript belonging to Lord Craw-
ford, which he has shown to be Philoxenian. Unlike the Harkleian revision,
the Philoxenian translation was written in free and idiomatic Syriac.
Page 159, line 15. After 1861-4 add and by Lagarde in 1892.
Page 160, line 31. After Bohairic add (from Boha'irah, the Arabic name
of Lower Egypt).
Page 161, line 1. There is no complete copy of the New Testament in
Bohairic. The whole of the New Testament is extant in that dialect, but not
in any single manuscript.
Page 162, line 13. After Sahidic add (from Es-sa*ld, the Arabic name of
Upper Egypt).
Page 164, lines 7 ff. It has recently been shown by Messrs. Robinson and
Conybeare that in all probability the Armenian version was originally made
from a Syriac text akin to that of the Old Syriac. This primitive Armenian
version was made before the end of th(? 4th century (possibly near the begin-
ning of it), and clearly shows that the Peshitto was not the current Syriac
version at or about that date. Similar evidence is ssiid to 1^ derivable from
the little-known Georgian version.
Page 167, line 4. It has lately been ingeniously argued by Mr. F. C.
Burkitt that the version to which Augustine alludes as Italian is really the
Vulgate ; but the subject requires further investigation before this conclusion
can be regarded as established. The whole subject of the Old Latin version,
and indeed of the Western type of text generally, is at present the cntx of New
Testament textual criticism.
Page 167, line 9. For by Rufinus, who die4 in 397 read which was proba-
bly made at the end of the second century, or very shortly afterwards.
IV ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS,
Page 167, line 31. For which is found nowhere else read due to the acci-
dental omission of some words.
Page 168, line 25. For d read dj.
Page 172, line 22. For containing only the Gospels read containing the
whole New Testament (together with the Apocryphal Epistle of St. Paul to
the Laodiceans), the Gospels being arranged, etc.
Page 175, line 26. The Old Latin was used in England even later than this,
being found in the quotations of Aldhelm (late 7th century) and Bede (early
8th century).
Page 178, line 16. For while Augustine . . . was winning his way read
even before Augustine . . . had begun to win his way.
Page 188, line 1. Mr. H. J. White, Bishop Wordsworth's colleague in
editing the Vulgate, has recently collated the Sixtine text in the Gospels, and
has found that here, at least, the charge of inaccurate printing is quite baseless.
The corrections in hand-stamped type are almost entirely in the prefaces, the
text itself being printed with great accuracy. Hence it would appear that the
hostility of the Jesuits was the real cause of the recall of the Sixtine Bible.
Page 191, line 7. For 674 read 673.
Pages 204-208. Father Gasquet has published an answer to this criticism in
*' The Old English Bible and Other Essays" (1897). The controversy turns
on a number of small points of evidence, which it is quite impossible to discuss
here ; indeed, the only satisfactory answer would be a complete re-examination
of the history of the Wycliffite Bible. It may be observed, however, that
Father Gasquet (besides, as it seems to me, straining the interpretation of the
historical evidence) does not meet the argument derived from the connexion of
Hereford and Purvey with the extant Bibles. A parallel case of a translation
made by an anti-Koman party, but subsequently accepted by the Eoman
Church, may be found in the Italian version current in the 1 4th and 1 5th
centuries, which there is good reason to suppose was originally made by the
Vaudois, but was adopted by the Catholics.
Page 221, line 27. Cromwell's order was repeated in 1541, which shows
that it had not been universally complied with up to that date.
Page 223, line 22 ff. Tavemer*s Bible deserves notice as the first complete
English Bible wholly printed in England.
PEEFACE.
riiHE Bible has a twofold history, internal and external.
-^ The internal history deals with the character of its
narrative and its teaching, as a revelation of God and of
God's will ; the external history tells how and when the
several books were written, and how they have been
preserved to us. The former treats of the Bible in its
divine, the latter in its human, aspect. The former is
unique, differing not merely in detail, but in kind, from the
history of any other book ; the latter is shared by the
Bible with every other book that ever was written. It is,
of course, its internal history which is of supreme value ;
but the very greatness of this value gives to the external
history of the Bible a special interest and importance
above that of all other books. If the Bible claims so
unparalleled a pre-eminence, it is of the first consequence to
us to know when and how it was written, whether the
several books of it are authentic, and whether they have
been faithfully handed down to us through the centuries
which separate us from the time of their origin.
The present volume deals solely with the latter part of
the Bible's external history, the transmission of the sacred
IV PliEFACK.
text. It is a subject upon wliich veiy much has been
written, and each section of it has engaged the attention
and occupied tlie lives of many scholars. My object has
been to condense within the limits of a moderate volume
the principal results at which these specialists have arrived,
so as to furnish tlie reader who is not liimself a specialist
in textual criticism with a concise history of the Bible text,
and to enable him to form an intelligent opinion on the textual
questions which continually present themselves to the Bible
student. In this attempt I have necessarily been indebted
to the laboui-s of others at every turn. To acknowledge this
indebtedness in every case, to trace every statement to its
original owner, would be an endless task, and would over-
load this book with notes, to an extent quite unsuitable to
its character ; but it may be of some use to mention the
principal authorities whom I have followed in each part of
the history. To Strack, Davidson, DHver, (yornill, and
Buhl on the Old Testament generally ; to Field, Lagarde,
Ceriani, and Swete on the Septuagint : to Scrivener,
Gregory, and Hoi*t on the New Testament ; to the writers
in the second volume of Scrivener's Iiitroduction (4th
edition, by Miller) on the versions of the New" Testament ;
to Wordswoi-th, White, and Berger on the Vulgate : to
Skeat, Madden, and especially Westcott on the history of
the English Bible — I desire to record my obligations in the
strongest terms of respect. I have not, liowever, confined
myself to the writers here mentioned, but have tried
throughout to find and consult all the best authorities, so
as to present in this volume a readable summary of the
present results of the best criticism. I hope also that I
may have gained something from an acquaintance with tlie
Biblical manuscripts in the British Museum.
PREFACE.
This volume is especially intended for those who study
the Bible in English, and in referring to details of textual
criticism I have consequently had in my mind the only
edition of the English Bible in which these details
are made accessible to the ordinary reader, namely the
Variorum Bible published by Messrs. Eyre and Spottis-
woode. I hope, however, that it may also be found useful
by students who are beginning to make acquaintance with
the textual criticism of the Septuagint or New Testament-
in their original language, and who use such editions as the
Cambridge Septuagint edited by Prof. Swete, or the Oxford
Greek Testament edited by Prof. Sanday. To any of these
editions this volume may, in the chapters relating to those
parts of the subject, serve as a companion ; but indepen-
dently of such use, it is intended to give the reader a
general knowledge of the textual history of the Bible,
from the time at which the several books were written
until their appearance in our English Bibles to-day.
With regard to the plates, a few words of explanation
are necessary. In presenting facsimiles of large manu-
scripts within the compass of a small page, two alternatives
are possibla One may either reproduce a small portion of
the original page in its full size, or one may give the whole
page (or a large part of it) on a reduced scala There is
something to be said for either course; but I have preferred
the latter, on the ground that it gives a better idea of the
general appearance of the manuscript, and also that it
enables one to point out more examples of the character-
istics of the manuscripts and the errors of the scribes. I
have, however, in every case stated the original size of the
page reproduced, and (in cases where the whole page
S 2761. b
Vi PS^FACE,-
cannot be given) of the part reproduced ; and it is open to
anyone to counteract the reduction by the use of a magni-
fying glass. It should be observed that in many cases the
greater part of the difference between the whole page and
the part reproduced is accounted for by the margins. Use
has been made, in several instances, of the plates published
by the Palseographical Society, with the permission of the
editors ; but wherever it has been possible I have tried to
give pages which especially illustrate the peculiarities of
the manuscript in question or some important detail of
textual criticism.
In a book which covers so much ground on which so
much labour has been bestowed, it is useless to hope that
there should be no room for diflFerences of opinion and
no errors of detail ; but I shall be very grateful for any
corrections which may serve to make my work less un-
worthy of the high subject with which it ventures to deal.
F. G. K,
Department of Manuscripts,
British Museum.
25th October, 1895.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE I.
Variations in the Bible Text. page
The existence of variations. — Examples. — Their origin. — Mistakes of
copyists: (1) Errors of hand and eye. — (2) Errors of mind. —
(3) Errors of deliberate alteration. — Early MSS. the most free from
error. — Method of recovering the tnie text. — Textual errors do not
endanger doctrine • . . . . . . .. ,1-11
CHAPTEE n.
The Authoeities tor the BrsLE Text.
The Authorities classified. — 1. Manuscripts. — 2. Versions. — 3. Quota.-
tions in the Fathers * • . . . , / , 12- J6
CHAPTER m.
The Orioinal Manuscripts of the Bible.
Writing in early times : the Tell el-Amama tablets. — "Writing in
Babylonia. — In Egypt. — In Palestine. — Form of the original
manuscripts of the Bible -...., 17-22
CHAPTER IV.
The Hebrew Text.
The Hebrew characters. — The Hebrew language. — Classification of the
books of the Old Testament into three groups. — Those groijips
represent three stages in the formation of the Hebrew Canon :
(1) The Law; (2) The Prophets; (3) The Hagiographa.— Dates of
these stages, from which the care for the text may be supposed to
commence. — Stages in the history of the Hebrew text. — 1. The
Targums. — 2. The Talmud. — 3. The Massoretes. — The extant
Hebrew text entirely Massoretic. — The text, once fixed, copied with
extreme care. — The extant MSS. comparatively late, but faithful,
— Causes of disappearance of older copies. — The extant MSS., how
classified. — Description of the chief MSS. — The printed text. —
Summary : the extant MSS. contain a faithful representation of a
text which can be traced back to about a.d. 100 ; but they do not
enable us to follow it further ...... 23-42
viii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V.
The Ancient Yebsions of the Old Testament. page
The versions the only means for arriving at a pre-Massoretic tcirt . 43-92
§ 1. — The Samaritan Pentateuch. Its origin. — Its discovery. — Its
character. — Its manuscripts ...... 44-48
§ 2. — The Septuagint and other Greek versions. Origin of the
Septuagint. — Its contents. — Becomes the Bible of the Christian
Church. — Consequently rejected by the Jews. — Rival translations
in the 2nd century: (1) Aquila, (2) Theodotion, (3) Symmachus.
— Origen's Hexapla : its great effect on the Septuagint. — Editions
of the Septuagint in the 3rd century : (1) Eusebius, (2) Lucian,
(3) Hesychius. — Present state of the Septuagint: The extant MSS.
— The printed editions. — Reconstruction of the ancient editions
from the MSS. — The Septuagint and Masspretic .texts . 48-73
§ 3.— Other Eastern Versions. The Syriac version. — The Coptic
versions. — The Ethiopic version, -r- The Gothic and other
versions . . , . . . •• . . 73-77
§ 4.— The Latin Versions, (a) The Old Latin Version.— (^) The
Vulgate ..,..,.... 77-83
§ 5. — Condition of the Old Testament Text. Summary of the
evidence of the versions.— Most of them too late to be of use. —
Evidence of the Samaritan Pentateuch. — The real issue : Septua-
gint V. Massoretic. — The Hebrew text certainly corrupt in places :
but the Septuagint not always trustworthy. — Additions and
corruptions in Septuagint. — Deliberate falsification of Hebrew
text not proven. — Summing-up ..... 83-02
CHAFTER VI.
The Text of the New Testament.
The original MSS. of the N. T. — Circumstances under which the early
copies were written. — Careful copying begins in the 4th century .^-
Transmission from 4th to 15th century. — The earliest printed texts.
— The " received " text. — Its deficiencies. — Materials for correcting
it: the chief manuscripts (uncial and cursive), versions, and
Fathers. — Grouping of authorities. — Westcott and Hort's theory. —
Distinction of Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral groups. —
Importance of this theory. — Objections to it. — The oljections
considered ......... 93-115
Appendix to Chapter VI.
The chief modern editions of the New Testament . . . 116-120
CONTENTS. IX
CHAPTER VII.
The Maituscripts of the New Testahent. page
Codex Sinaiticus (W). — Codex Alexandrinus (A). — Codex Vaticanus (B).
— Codex EphreBmi (C). — Codex Bezae (D). — Codex Claroraontanus
(Da).— Other uncial MSS.—Cursiye MSS 121-150
CHAPTER Vni.
The Ancient Veebions of the New Testament.
§ 1 . — The Eastern Versions. I. Syriac Versions. The Old or
Curetonian Syrjac. — The Peshitto. — The Philoxenian or Hark-
leian Syriac. — The Palestinian Syriac. — ^11. Coptic Versions. The
Memphitic or Bohairic. — The Thebaic or S^hidic. — The Fayynmic,
lyjiddle Egyptian, and Akl^mlmic Versions. — III. Other Eastern
Versions. Armenian. — Gothic. — Ethiopic. — 4^»bic, etc. , 151-165
§ 2. — The Western Versions, {a) The Old Latin. — Various forms of
it.— The principal MSS.— (6) The Vulgate.— The principal MSS.—
Codex Aiftiatinus . . . . . . . . 165-173
CHAPTER IX.
The Vulqate in the Middle Ages.
Importance of the Vulgate as the Bible of the West. — Simultaneous use
of Old Latin and Vulgate. — Consequent mixture of texts. — Spanish
and Irish MSS. — Irish illuminations in English MSS. — Texts of
English MSS. derived from Italy. — The Liniiisfarne Gospels. —
Eminence of English scholarship in the .8th and 9th centuries. —
ChArlemagne's eflGbrt to improve the Vulgate. — ^Alcuin's revision. —
The Golden Gospels. — Thepdulfs revision. — T)ie school of St. Gall.
— Subsequent deterioration. — Revision in the 13th century by the
University of Paris. — The earliest printed Latin Bibles. — The
Sixtine Vulgate. — The Clepaentine Vplg^te . . . 174-188
CHAPTER X.
The English Manuscript Bibles.
The conversion of England. — Cacdmon's Bible paraphrase. — The Psalter
of Aldhelm. — Bede. — Alfred. — Interlinear glosses in Latin Bibles. —
The Gospels of the 10th century. — JElfric's Old Testament. —
Progress suspended by the Norman Conquest. — Verse translations in
the 13th century. — Translations of the Psalms. — Revival of religion
in the 14th century. — ^Wycliffe. — The earlier Wycliffite Bible. — The
later Wyclifi&te Bible. — Theory that the Wycliffite Bible is not really
Wycliffe's. — Examination of the theory . . . . 189-208
CONTENTS,
CHAPTER XI.
Thb English Pbihted Bible. paqb
The invention of printing and the revival of learning. — ^The Eefbrmation.
— The struggle for a translation of the Bible. — (1) Tyndale's New
Testament, 1525. — His Pentateuch, 1530. — Kevised New Testament,
1534, 1535. — Tyndale's Bible the direct ancestor of the Authorised
Version.— (2) Coverdale's Bible, 1535.— (3) Matthew's Bible, 1537.
—(4) The Great Bible, 1539-1541.— (5) Tavemer's Bible, 1539.—
Progress suspended during reigns of Edward VI. and Mary. —
(6) The Geneva Bible, 1557-1560.— (7) The Bishops' Bible, 1568.—
(8) The Rhcims and Douai Bible, 1582-1609.— (9) The Authorised
Version, 1611. — Its excellence and influence. — Acceptance of the
Authorised Version. — Causes necessitating a revision in our own
time. — (10) The Revised Version. — ^Its characteristics. — Changes in
text. — Changes in interpretation. — Changes ip language. — Summary.
— Reception of the Revised Version ..... 209-245
Appendix.
Specimens of the English translations of the Bible . . . 247, 248
Index 249
LIST OF PLATES.
Froniispiece^^-TtE SAmab^tan l*ENtAtEuCH-ROLi at Ifs'ABLOus.
I. — Clay Tablet Jtioji TelA el-Ama*na . . . facing page 1 8
II.^-Hebrew Synagogue-»6ll (Brit. Mus. Hart. 7619) ,, 21
m.^— The Moabite Stone ..... „ 24
IV.— HebbIew MS. (Brit. Mus. Or. 4445) ... „ 39
V. — SamariTaA Pe]*tatefc6 (Rome, Barberini liibrary,
106) \ ,, 47
VI. — C0i:)E± MARCHAt.IANUS ..... „ 64
VII.— Peshitto Syriao MS. (Brit. Mus. Add. 14425) . „ 74
VIII. — Codex SinaWicus „ 125
IX. — CoDF.x Alexandeinus ..... „ 130
X. — Codex: Vaticanus ....... „ 136
XL— Codex EpiirAemi . . . . . . „ 139
XII. — Codex Bezae ....... „ 142
XIII. — Codex ClarOmontai^us ..... „ 145
XIV.— Cursive Greek ]SIS. (Evan. 348) ... „ 149
XV. — Curetonian MS. of Ol3> Sy^iac (Brit. Mus. Add.
14451) ,155
XVI.— BoHAiRic MS. (Brit. Mus. Or. 1315) ... „ 161
XVII.— Sahidic MS. (Brit. Mus. Or. 4717 (10)) . „ 163
XVIII. — Codex Vercellensis (Old Latin) ... „ 167
XIX. — Codex Amiatinus (Vulgate) . . . „ 171
XX. — The Lindisfarne Gospels .... ,, 179
XXI. — Alcuin's Vulgate (Brit. Mus. Add. 10546) . „ 183
XXII. — Mazarin Bible ...... „ 187
XXIII. — ^English Gospels of the 10th Century (Brit.
Mus. Reg. 1 A XIV.) .... „ 194
XXIV.— Wycliffe's Bible (Bodleian MS. 957) . . „ 200
XXV. — ^Tyndale's New Testament . . . ,, 214
OUR BIBLE ANB THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS;
BEING A
lifstori? of tbe XTeit anD its XTtanslatfons*
CHAPTER I
VARIATIONS IN THE BIBLE TEXT.
fTlHE following history of the Bible text and of its translation into
-■- English is an attempt to trace the manner in which the words
« _^ . X. of the sacred books have been handed down to
Uncertainties
in the Eevised US, from the time when they were first written
in the original Hebrew or Greek, down to their
appearance in our English Revised Version to-day. No one can
read that version intelligently without seeing that in very many
places there is considerable doubt as to the exact words used by
the original writers. On nearly every page, especially of the New
Testament, we see notes in the margin to the effect that " Some
ancient authorities read" this, or "Many ancient authorities read"
that, — ^these readings being alternatives to the readings actually
adopted in the text of the Revisers. The question inevitably follows.
What are these " ancient authorities ? " How comes it that they
differ so frequently among themselves ? How do we, or how does
anyone, know which to follow among these divergent witnesses ?
And then the larger question suggests itself. How has the text of
the Bible come down to us .^ We know that the several books
which compose it were written many centuries ago, and in other
languages than ours. What do we know of their history since
that time, and how have they been preserved to us and trans-
lated into our own language ?
fl«;64. , A
2 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPT8,
The difficulties suggested by the various readings, in the Eevised
Version are made more prominent if we look at such an edition as
the Variorum Bible.* Here we find the several
^^KMe^""*^ " ancient authorities " quoted separately whenever
there is any important conflict of evidence as to
the exact reading of any passage. Thus at Matt. 19. 17, to the
words "Why callest thou. Me good ? " there is the following note :
" So C A, Pesh. Theb. McL R marg. ; Why askest thou me con-
cerning the good ? K B D L, ^Z. La, TL Tr, We, WH, r." The
meaning of this note is that there are two . divergent readings
recorded in this passage. The manuscripts known as C and A
(which will be found described in Ch. VII.), two ancient trans-
lations of the New Testament into Syriac and Egyptian, the
editor M^Clellan, and the margin of the Eevised Version, read
" Why callest thou Me good ? " On the other hand, the four
manuscripts N, B, D, L, the editors Alford, Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, Tregelles, Weiss, Westcott and Hort, and the text of the
Eevised Version, have "Why askest thou Me concerning the
good ? " To the student acquainted with these critical sytobols,
this information is intelligible and important ; but unless we
have some previous knowledge of the subject we shall not under-
stand the comparative value of the various authorities quoted.
The indispensable information is given in the preface and intro-
duction to the Variorum Bible ; but, although stated with ad-
mirable completeness and conciseness, it is necessarily brief,
♦ This is, I believe, the only critical edition of the Bible in English. It
gives a digest, under the head of " Various Renderings," of the translations
or interpretations proposed by the best commentators in doubtful passages,
and under the head of " Various Readings," of the more important variations
of the principal manuscripts, versions^ and editions. The names of the editors
(Prof. Driver and Prof. Cheyne of the O.T., Prof. Sanday and the Rev.
R. L. Clarke of the N.T., and the Rev. C. J. Ball of the Apocrypha) are guar-
antees for the excellence of the work. The surest results of Biblical criticism
are thus made accessible to English readers in a clear and compact form ; and
since the present book is intended primarily for those who study the Bible in
English, reference will generally be made to the notes of the Variorum Bible,
rather than to the critical editions of the Hebrew or Greek texts.
VARIATIONS m THE BIBLE TEXT,
and it may occur to many to wish to know more about the
authorities on which our knowledge of the Bible rests. It is all
very well to say that such-and-such manuscripts support one
reading of a passage, while other manuscripts support another,
but we are no better able than before to judge which reading
is to be preferred unless we know which manuscripts are most
likely to be right. The questions asked above recur with doubled
force : How do there come to be diflFerences in different records of
the Bible text, and how do we know which reading to prefer when
the authorities differ ?
That these questions are not idle nor unimportant may be seen
by mentioning a few of the passages in which important variations
- . are found. We will take, for the moment, the Gos-
of important pels alone. The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer
is omitted in the oldest copies of Matt. 6. 13;
several copies omit Matt. 16. 2, 3 altogether ; a long additional
passage is sometimes found after Matt. 20. 28 ; the last twelve
verses of St. Mark are omitted altogether by the two oldest copies
of the original Greek ; one very ancient authority inserts an addi-
tional incident after Luke 6. 4, while it alters the account of the
institution of the Lord's Supper in Luke 22. 19, 20, and omits
altogether Peter's visit to the sepulchre in 24. 12, and several other
details of the Kesurrection ; the version of the Lord's Prayer in
Luke 11. 2-4 is much abbreviated in many copies ; the incident
of the Bloody Sweat is omitted in 22. 43, 44, as also is the word
from the Cross, " Father, forgive them," in 23. 34 ; the mention
of the descent of an angel to cause the moving of the waters of
Bethesda is entirely absent from the oldest copies of John 5. 4, and
all the best authorities omit the incident of the woman taken in
adultery in 7. 53-8. 11. Besides the larger discrepancies, such as
these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation
of phrase in some copies. No one can say that these additions or
omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference. It is
true (and it cannot be too emphatically stated) that none of the
fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which the
A 2
4 OVR BIBLE AND THE AXCIEXT MANUSCRIPTS.
genuineness is doubtful ; but it still remains a matter of concern
to us to know that our Bible, as we have it to-day, represents as
closely as may be the actual words used^by the writers of the sacred
books. It is the object of this volume to present, within a moderate
compass and as clearly as possible, the means we have for knowing
that it does so ; to trace the history of the sacred texts from the
time of their original composition to our own Revised Version of
1885 ; to show the authorities on which they rest, and the com-
parative value to be put upon each. It is the special duty of
scholars to weigh the evidence on each particular disputed passage,
and to form editions and translations of the sacred books ; but any
intelligent reader, without any knowledge of either Greek or
Hebrew, can learn enough to understand the processes of criticism
and the grounds on which the judgments of scholars must be
based. Xor is the subject dry or uninteresting. The history of the
Bible text has a living interest for all those who care for its con-
tents ; and no Englishman should be altogether ignorant of the
history of the English Bible.
One preliminary question should be cleared away before pro-
ceeding to the history of the text. It is the question that naturally
Th "irin ^^^^ ^^^ ' "^^^ ^^ various readings of a passage
of variations in come into existence ? It is a question easily
answered, so soon as the character of ancient
books is understood. Nowadays, when an author writes a book,
he sends it to the printer, from whom he receives proof-sheets ;
and he corrects the proof-sheets until he is satisfied that it is
printed accurately, and then hundreds or thousands of copies, as
the case may be, are struck off from the same types and distributed
to the world. Each one of these copies is exactly like all the rest,
and there can be no varieties of readings. All the extant copies
of, say, any one edition of Macaulay's History or Tennyson's Poems
are identical. Tennyson may have himself altered his own verses
from time to time, and so have other authors ; but no one doubts
that in each edition of a modem book we have (slips of editor or
printer excepted) exactly what the author intended at the time, an'" ^
VARIATIONS IN THE BIBLE TEXT.
that each oopj of it is exactly like every other copy. But before
the invention of printing this was far from being the case. Each
separate copy of a book had to be written by hand ; and the human
hand and brain have not yet been created which could copy the
whole of a long work absolutely without error. Often (and this
we may easily believe to have been especially the case in the early
days of the Christian Church, when it was a poor, half-educated,
and persecuted body) copies were made hurriedly and without
opportunity for minute revision. Mistakes were certain to creep
in ; and when once in existence they were certain to increase, as
fresh copies were made from manuscripts already faulty. If
the original manuscripts of the sacred book were still preserved,
the errors of later copies would be to us now a matter of indiffer-
ence ; but since the original manuscripts perished long ago, we
have to try to arrive at their contents by a comparison of later
copies, all of which are more or less faulty and all varying from
one another. This is the problem of textual criticism, and it will
be seen that its sphere is large. Printing was invented in 1454,
little more than four centuries ago ; but for all the centuries before
that date, books existed only in hand-written copies, which we call
manuscripts (from the Latin nKmu-scriptum = " written by hand,"
often abbreviated as " MS."). Of the chief of these manuscripts
we shall have to speak at greater length in the course of this book.
Meanwhile it will be clear that the existence of differences of
reading in many passages of the Bible as we have it to-day is due
to the mistakes made in copying them by hand during the many
centuries that elapsed between the composition of the books and
the invention of printing.
The mistakes of scribes are of many kinds and of varying im-
portance. Sometimes the copyist confuses words of similar sound,
as in English we sometimes find our correspon-
The mistakes of j . -i. ^l r ^l • r r r a
copyists : dents write there for their or here for hear, Some-
1. Errors of hand times he passes over a word by accident ; and
and eye.
this is especially likely to happen when two
adjoining words end with the same letters. Sometimes this cause
6 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPT8.
of error operates more widely. Two successive lines of the manu-
script from which he is copying end with the same or similar
words ; and the copyist's eye slips from the first to the second,
and the intermediate line is omitted. Sometimes, again, the
manuscript from which he is copying has been furnished with
short explanatory notes in the margin, and he fails to see where
the text ends and the note begins, and so copies the note into the
text itself.
These are all simple errors of hand and eye. Errors of the
mind are more dangerous, because they are less easy to detect.
The copyist's mind wanders a little from the
' mind!^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ copying, and he writes down words
which come mechanically into his head, just as
we do nowadays if people talk while we are writing, and distract
our attention. Some words are familiar in certain phrases, and
the familiar phrase runs off the pen of the copyist when the word
should be written in some other combination. A form of this
error is very common in manuscripts of the Gospels. The same
event is often narrated in two or more of them, in slightly different
language ; and the copyist, either consciously or unconsciously,
alters the words of the one version to make them the same as
those of the other. A careful reader of the Variorum Bible
or the Revised Version will note many instances where this has
happened. Thus in Matt. 11. 19 the Authorised Version has
" But wisdom is justified of her children," as in Luke 7. 35 ; but
the Revised Version tells us- that the original text had " works "
instead of " children " here, the truth being that the copyists of all
except the earliest extant manuscripts have altered it, so as to
make it correspond with the account in St. Luke. Similarly in
Matt. 16. 13, our Lord's question runs (in the r.v.) "Who do
men say that the Son of Man is ? " and the margin tells us
that "Many ancient authorities read that /, the Son of Man^ am;
see Mark 8. 27, Luke 9. 18." In Matt. 23. 14 a whole verse has
probably been inserted from the pamllel passages in Mark and
Luke ; and so with Mark 15. 28. In Luke 6. 48 the concluding
VARIATIONS IN THE BIBLE TEXT.
words of the parable of the house built on the rock, "because
it had been well builded," have been altered in "many ancient
authorities'' in accordance with the more striking and familiar
phrase in St. Matthew, " for it had been founded upon the rock."
Errors like these increase in the later copies, as the words of the
sacred narrative are more and more familiar to the copyists ; and
when once made they do not admit of correction, unless we are
able to examine copies written before the corruption took place.
They do not betray themselves by injuring the sense of the pas-
sage, as is generally the case with errors of the first class.
An untrue hand or eye or an over-true memory may do much
harm in a copyist ; but worst and most dangerous of all is it when
3 Errors of ^^® copyist begins to think for himself. The
deliberate alter- veneration in which the sacred books were held
has generally protected them against intentional
alterations of the text, but not entirely so. The harmonisaUon of
the Gospel narratives, described in the last paragraph, has cer-
tainly been in some cases intentional ; and that, no doubt, without
the smallest wish to deceive, but simply with the idea of supple-
menting the one narrative from its equally authentic companion.
Sometimes the alterations are more extensive. The earliest Greek
translation of the Old Testament contains several passages in the
books of Esther and Daniel which are not found in the Hebrew.
The long passages, Mark 16. 9-20 and John 7. 53—8. 11, which
are absent from the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament,
must have been either omitted in these or inserted in the others
intentionally. If, as is more probably the case, they have been
inserted in the later copies, this was no doubt done in order to
supplement the Gospel from some other good source, and the
narratives are almost certainly authentic, though they may not
have been written by the Evaugelist in whose Gospel they now
appear. Indeed an Armenian translation of St. Mark has quite
recently been discovered, in which the last twelve verses of
St. Mark are ascribed to Aristion, who is otherwise known as
one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers ; and it is quite
8 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
• .
possible that this tradition is correct, and that Aristion compiled
this short summary to take the place of the original ending, which
had been lost. There is, however, no reason at all to suppose that
additions of this kind have been made in any except a very few
cases. ^ The evidence for our Bible text is too great and of too
varied a description to allow us to suppose that passages have been
interpolated without any sign of it being visible. The intentional
alterations of scribes are, for the most part, verbal, not substantial,
such as the modification of a phrase in one Evangelist to suit the
narrative of another, or the combination of two reports of some
utterance into one ; and errors of this kind can generally be de-
tected on a comparison of several different manuscripts, in some
of which the alteration will not have been made.
From this short account of the different classes of mistakes into
which the copyists of manuscripts were most liable to fall, it will
be clear that the later a manuscript is in date, the
gciipts th?mOTt ^ore likely it is to contain many errors. Bach
likely to be free ^]j^q ^ fresh copy is made, some new mistakes will
from error. ^^^ '
probably be introduced, while only the most ob-
vious blunders in the manuscript copied will be corrected. It may
therefore be stated as a general rule that the earlier a manuscript
is, the better is its text likely to be. The rule is only a general
one, and is liable to exceptions ; for instance, a manuscript written
in the year 1200, if copied direct from a manuscript of the year
350, will probably be more correct than a manuscript written in
the year 1000, which was copied from one written in 850 or 900.
Each manuscript must therefore be searched, to see if it shows
signs of containing an early form of the text ; but the general
rule that the earliest manuscripts are the best will still usually
hold good.
The problem which lies before the textual critic, as the student
of the language of the Bible is technically called, is now becoming
Th th d f ^^^^" ^^^ original manuscripts of the Bible,
recovering the written by the authors of the various books, have
trnfi text
long ago disappeared. The critic's object, conse-
VARIATIONS IN THE BIBLE TEXT.
quently, is to reconstmct the text of these original mannscripts by
a comparison of the later copies which have come down to ns ;
and the difficulty of his task depends on the age and number of
these copies which he is able to compare. A diagram will make
the position clear.
A
k i J h I rn, n a
/\ I lAlffA
Here A represents the original author's copy of a book ; t and c
are copies made from it ; d^ ^,/, g are copies made from h and c,
and so on. Some errors are sure to be made in h and c^ but not
the same in each : d will correct a few of those in J, but will copy
the rest and add more ; e will both correct and copy different ones,
and so will/ and g and all the subsequent copies. So, as time goes
on, the number of errors will go on increasing, and the extreme
copies diverge from one another more and more. Often a copyist
will use two manuscripts to copy from (for instance, we may sup-
pose the writer of jt? to have copied from n as well as from A), and
then the errors of two different lines of descent will become mixed.
At some stage in the history of the text perhaps some scholar will
compare several copies, correct what he thinks are mistakes in
them, and cause copies to be made of his corrected text ; and then
all manuscripts which are taken, directly or indirectly, from these
corrected copies will bear the stamp of this revision, and will differ
from those of which the line of descent is different. Now suppose
all the manuscripts denoted by the letters in the diagram to have
disappeared (and it . must be remembered that by far the greater
number of copies of any ancient book have perished long ago).
10 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
except p^ I, and y. It is evident that none of these copies will con-
tain exactly the true text of A ; each will have diverged from it,
but each will have diverged differently. Some mistakes they may
have in common, but in most they will differ ; and wherever they
differ it is the business of textual criticism to determine which
manuscript has the true reading, and so to try to re-establish by
comparison the original text of A.
Such, but infinitely complicated by the number of manuscripts
of the Bible which have come down to us, and by the long lapse of
years since the originals were written, is the task of the scholars
who try to restore to us the exact words of the sacred books. The
object of the chapters which follow is to show in more detail the
nature of the problem in respect to the Old Testament and New
Testament respectively ; to state what is known, or plausibly con-
jectured, concerning the history of their text ; and to describe the
principal manuscripts of each, and the other means available for
the detection of mistakes and the restoration of the truth. The
story is not so technical but that all may understand it, and all can
appreciate the interest and value of the minutest study of the true
Word of God.
One word of warning, already referred to, must be emphasised in
conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests
„ . , on a disputed reading. Constant references to
do not endanger mistakes and divergencies of reading, such as the
plan of this book necessitates, might give rise to
the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the
Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted
that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this
the case with the New Testament.* The number of manuscripts
* Dr. Hort, whose authority on the point is quite incontestable, estimates the
proportion of words about which there is soTJie doubt at about one-eighth of the
whole ; but by far the greater part of these consists merely of differences in
order and other unimportant variations, and " the amount of what can in any
sense be called substantial variation .... can hardly form more than a
thousandth part of the entire text." (Introduction to The New Testament in
the original Greek, p. 2).
VARIATIONS IN THE BIBLE TEXT. 11
of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quota-
tions from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it
is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful pas-
sage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities.
This can be said of no other ancient book in the world. Scholars
are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the
principal Greek and Koman writers whose works have come down
to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil, yet our
knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manu-
scripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted
by hundreds, and even thousands. In the case of the Old Testa-
ment we are not quite in such a good position, as will be shown
presently. In some passages it seems certain that the true reading
has not been preserved by any ancient authority, and we are driven
to conjecture in order to supply it. But such passages are an
infinitesimal portion of the whole and may be disregarded. The
Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without
fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true "Word of God, faith-
fully handed down from generation to generation throughout the
centuries.
( 12 )
CHAPTER II.
THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE BIBLE TEXT.
WE have seen that the Bible has been preserved to us, for
many centuries previous to the invention of printing, by
means of copies written by hand ; and we have seen that in such
copies mistakes are certain to arise and multiply. Now if a
scholar at this present day were to take in hand the task of
correcting these mistakes and recovering the true text, how would
he set about it ? Of course, as a matter of fact, he would find
that very much of the work had already been done for him by
earlier scholars ; but we will suppose that nothing has been done,
and see how he must go to work. That will show us the way
in which scholars for the last four centuries have laboured on the
text of the Bible.
In the first place he will examine as many as possible of the
manuscripts of the Bible in the original languages in which it was
written, Hebrew and Greek. These are scattered
1. Manuscripts.
about in all the great libraries of the world, and
must be visited and carefully studied. He will note which are
the oldest, he will use his judgment to determine which are the
best. "Where all the manuscripts are agreed, he has nothing more
to do, and those parts of the text are put down at once as certain.
Where there are diiferences between the manuscripts, he will have
to decide which of the various readings is the more probable. In
some cases the reading of a manuscript will be obviously wrong ;
in many it will be easy to see that the one reading is a perversion
of the other, — that the copyist has inadvertently dropped out a
word or misread the word in the original from which he was
copying, or has fallen into some other of the classes of error
THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE BIBLE TEXT 13
described in the preceding chapter. In this way a correct repre-
sentation of the greater part of the text will be obtained. Still
there will remain a considerable number of passages about which
the manuscripts differ, but in which it is not possible to decide at
once what reading is right. Then it will be necessary to discrimi-
nate between the manuscripts. Our scholar's earlier investigations
will have shown him which manuscripts are generally trustworthyj
and which are most full of mistakes. As a general rule he will
prefer the jeading which is supported by the oldest manuscripts,
as being nearest to the time of the original work ; and if all the
oldest manuscripts are on one side, and all the later on the other,
the reading of the former will certainly be adopted. Where the
older manuscripts are divided, his task becomes harder ; he has to
consider whether either of the alternative readings is likely to have
been derived from the other, or if one of them is more likely than
the other to have been invented at a later time. For instance,
there is a tendency among scribes, when they do not understand a
phrase, to substitute one more easy of comprehension ; and hence
it is a rule of criticism that a harder reading is generally to be
preferred to an easier one, since the latter is more likely to have
been substituted for the former than vice versa. This rule must
be applied with discretion, however, for the unintentional altera-
tions of scribes will often produce a harder reading than the true
one. Another principle is to try to classify the manuscripts in
groups, those which habitually agree with one another being pro-
bably descended from some common ancestor ; and a reading
which is supported by two or more groups is more likely to be
right than one which is supported by one only, even though that
one may be a very large and numerous group. By the time our
scholar has proceeded so far in his work, he will have formed a
pretty confident opinion as to which manuscripts are the most
worthy of trust ; and then, when other methods fail to determine
the true reading in a doubtful passage, he will be inclined to accept
that reading which is supported by the manuscripts which he
believes to be the best.
14 OXTR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
So far our scholar has confined himself entirely to the manu-
scripts of the sacred books in their original languages ; but he will
be maJdng a great mistake if he stops there. He
will remember that the Bible has been translated
into many different languages, and he will bethink himself that a
translation which has been made with any care and accuracy will
generally show what was the Hebrew or Greek text which the
translator had before him. Now several of the translations of the
Bible, — such as the Samaritan and Greek versions of the Old
Testament, the Syriac and Latin versions of the New — ^were cer-
tainly made at a date much earlier than that at which any of the
manuscripts which we now possess of the original Hebrew and
Greek were written. The oldest manuscript of the Greek New
Testament now in existence was written about a.d. 350 ; but the
earliest Syriac and Latin translations of the New Testament were
made somewhere about A.D. 150. Hence, if we can gather from
the existing copies of these translations what were the Greek words
which their authors were translating, we know what was read in
that particular passage in a Greek manuscript current about the
year 150, when these translations were made ; and this brings us
back very near to the time when the originals of the New Testa-
ment books were themselves written. It is true that we have not
the original copies of the Latin and Syriac versions, any more than
we have the originals of the Greek itself, and that a similar process
of comparison of copies to that described in the last paragraph
must be gone through if we are to discover the original readings
of the translations ; but in many cases this can be done with
certainty, and then we have a very early testimony indeed to the
original Greek text. We talk sometimes of the " stream of tra-
dition " by which the text of the Bible has been borne down to us
from the fountain-head in the original manuscripts; well, the
service of the Versions (as the translations of the Bible into other
languages are technically called) is that they tap the stream near
the fountain-head. They are unaffected by any corruptions that
may have crept into the Greek text after, the translations were
THE AUTHORITIES FOR THE BIBLE TEXT
15
made ; they may have corruptions of their own, but they will not
generally be the same as the corruptions in the Greek text, and
they will serve mutually to correct one another. To alter the
comparison, we get several groups of evidence converging on the
same spot, as the accompanying diagram shows.
A fOri^Oudlextf
I
Varlntis Manuscripts
Our scholar has yet one other source to which he may turn for
evidence as to the original text, namely, the quotations of isolated
passages in the writings of the early Fathers.
^'•pt^^^^^ Many of the first Christian writers whose works
have been preserved — for instance, Irenaeus,
Origen, Jerome, Athanasius— must have used manuscripts of the
Bible older than any that we now have, and many of them quoted
largely from the Bible in their writings. If, therefore, we know in
what form they quoted any particular passage, we may argue that
they found that form of it in the manuscript which they used. But
this argument must be used with much caution. In the first place,
it is evident that they often quoted from memory. Copies of the
Bible were not so common in those days as they are now, and, in
' the absence of the modem division into chapters and verses, it was
less easy to turn up a passage when required to verify a quotation.
A curious proof of the liability to error in quotations from memory
is furnished by a modem divine. It is said that Jeremy Taylor
quotes the well-known text, " Except a man be born again he
in OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
— - i" ■ .-^_- — ^ — — -_, . - --,- ^ ^_
cannot see the kingdom of God," no less than nine times, yet
only twice in the same form, and in no single instance correctly.
"We must not assume that the ancient Fathers were infallible
in their memories. Further, it is often difficult to he certain
that we have the quotations as the Fathers themselves wrote
them. If a scribe who was copying a manuscript of one of the
early Fathers found a text quoted in a form unfamiliar to him, he
would be not unlikely to alter it into the form then current. For
these reasons it is dangerous to base an argument for a reading on
the Fathers alone, except when the context in which it is found
shows conclusively in what form the writer quoted it ; but to con-
firm other evidence they may often be of very great value. They
will be of still more value when their own texts have themselves
been critically edited, which is at present far from being the case
with all of them.
Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, — such are the resources of our
scholar in his task of recovering the true text of the Bible. Of
the third of these we cannot speak more at length within the
compass of this book ; but in the history of the two first is the
history of the Bible text. Our object will be to describe, first
the principal manuscripts, and then the chief translations, of each
Testament in turn, and so to carry down the history of the Bible
from the earliest times to our own days, — to show how our own
English Bible is the lineal descendant of the volumes once written
by Prophet, Apostle, and Evangelist.
( 17 )
CHAPTER m.
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE.
"TN the year 1887 a discovery was made which has revolutionised
-*- our knowledge of the conditions of writing in Palestine in
^^ the earliest times. In the course of that year an
Tell el-Amama Egyptian woman found, amid the ruins of an
T'ftlllfiliB
ancient city about half-way between Thebes and
Memphis, now known as Tell el-Amama, a collection of clay tablets
inscribed with strange symbols. When these were brought to the
knowledge of Oriental scholars, their excitement was immense ; for
here, in the middle of Egypt, were documents written, not, after
the manner of the country, in the Egyptian language and upon
papyrus, but engraved upon clay, and in the unmistakable cunei-
form, or wedge-shaped, writing characteristic of Assyria and
Babylonia. Nor did their surprise lessen as they deciphered the
writing and discovered its meaning. For these tablets proved to
be the official correspondence of Egyptian governors or vassal-
princes, stationed in Palestine and in other places beyond the
borders of Egypt, with their master. King Amenopbis TV. of
Egypt, and his ministers at home. Their date is about the year
1380 B.C., and, according to some scholars, the time is that at
which Joshua and the Hebrews were overrunning southern Pales-
tine, while the Hittites were conquering Damascus, and the
Anmionites were invading Phoenicia. Jerusalem and Lachish,
Jabin, king of Hazor, and Japhia, king of Gezer, are mentioned
by name. It is a record contemporary with the events described
in the Book of Joshua, and in part relating to those events
themselves.*
* If this chronology be accepted, the ordinary date assigned to the Exodus,
in the reign of Merenptah, successor of Barneses II., will have to be abandoned ;
for Amenophis IV. ruled about a century before Kameses II. The question
8 2784. B
18 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
The direct historical importance of the discovery is very great ;
but it is hardly less important for the light it throws on the literary
conditions of the East at the time when they were
of Siting. written. It proves that writing was familiarly
known and freely used in Palestine fourteen cen-
turies before Christ. It shows that the Babylonian language was
the recognised medium of official intercourse in the East at that
date, much as French has been in modem Europe. It shows that'
historical records were preserved, from which later writers may
have drawn their materials. It tells us something of the form in
which were written, if not the Bible books themselves, at least
some of the documents from which they were composed.
It is no part of the plan of this book to discuss the date at
which the several books of the Old Testament were written. That
is a subject requiring a treatise to itself. All that concerns us at
present is to know in what outward form and shape books were
written in Palestine during the periods in which the Old Testa-
ment books may have been composed. Palestine lay between the
kingdoms of Egypt and Babylonia, and its literary development
was affected from both sides. Both in Egypt and in Babylonia
writing was largely practised from the earliest times of which we
have knowledge, but in different materials and in very different
languages. The writers of Palestine, as will be shown, borrowed
something from each, but they also struck out new developments
of their own.
In Babvlonia the material on which books were written was
clay. The clay was moulded into tablets or cylinders of various
shapes, and the writing was inscribed on them
B^^nS ^^^^ ^ sharp-pointed instrument while the clay
was still moist. Whole libraries of these tablets,
of all kinds of sizes, have been discovered, and there may now be
whether the Abiri, mentioned in the tablets as overrunning southern Palestine,
are the same as the Hebrews, must be left for specialists to decide ; and their
opinions are at present divided. According to the usual chronology, the Tell el-
Amama tablets belong to the century before the Exodus.
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE, 19
seen in the British Museum the tablets on which are recorded the
ancient Babylonian story of the Flood, so curiously resembling the
narrative in Genesis, and Sennacherib's account of his campaigns
against Hezekiah of Judah. The discovery of the Tell el-Amama
tablets (one of which is reproduced in Plate I. as an example of this
form of book) proves that writing of this kind was freely practised
in Palestine at the time of the invasion of Joshua, or even earlier.
"We do not indeed know that the Hebrews themselves ever adopted
this form of writing on clay for their books ; but there can be
very little doubt that Hebrew writers made use of records of this
kind, which they found stored up in the cities of Palestine.* Even
if we accept the very latest date which the most advanced
criticism has assigned to the composition of the Pentateuch in its
present form^ the compilers of it must have used records of a far
earlier date, and among them, as we now see, may have been clay
tablets contemporaneous with the eveilts narrated in the history.
In Egypt, on the other hand, books were made of papyrus, a
material resembling paper in general characteristics, but manufac-
tured out of the fibres of the papyrus-plant, which
^E^pl^ then grew plentifully in the waters of the Nile.
The fibres of the stalk of this plant were separated,
and laid upon one another in two layers, so that the fibres in the
upper layer ran horizontally, and those of the lower layer perpen-
dicularly. The two layers were then moistened with Nile water
and fastened together by glue and pressure into a single sheet.
These sheets were then attached to one another, side by side, so as
to form long rolls of papyrus ; the surface of the roll was rubbed
and polished until it was smooth enough to be written on with
ease, and on these rolls the writing was inscribed with reed pens
and vegetable ink. One of these rolls, still preserved, reaches the
enormous length of 144 feet, but usually they are much shorter,
twenty feet being a fair average length for a Greek papyrus
* The name of Kiriath-sepher, mentioned in Josh. 16. 15, means "the city
of books/' and is so translated in the Greek version of the passage. The name
evidently impUes that books were stored there.
B 2
(
20 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
manuscript. Brittle as the papyrus becomes with age, the dry
climate of Egypt has preserved hundreds and thousands of such
manuscripts, the earliest now extant having been written about the
year 2500 B.C. These were the books with which the Israelites
became famihar during their residence in Egypt, and it was from
these that the form of their own books in later times was derived.
The roll form, and to a great extent the papyrus material, were
also adopted from Egypt by the Greeks ; and all the great works
of classical literature were written in this manner. It was not until
after the beginning of the Christian era that the page form, as in
a modem book, came into existence. The sands of Egypt still
from time to time give us back books written fifteen, twenty, or
even thirty centuries ago ; but only the later ones are in book
form, the earlier are invariably rolls.
There is nothing in the historical books of the Bible which ex-
pressly tells us the shape and form of books in the earlier part of
that period, but in the times of the prophets
Palesthie. ^^^^^ ^^^^ certainly used. Tablets were no doubt
employed for short inscriptions, such as Jeremiah
was thinking of when he said " The sin of Judah is written with a
pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond ; it is graven upon
the table of their heart " (Jer. 17. 1), and it was upon a " great
tablet" (Isa. 8. 1, R.V.) that Isaiah wrote the words " For Maher-
shalal-hash-baz " ; but it was a " roll of a book " which Jeremiah
took in order that Baruch might write therein with ink the words
which the Lord had spoken against Israel, and which Jehoiakim
cut with a penknife and burnt in the fire that was in the brasier
before him (Jer. 36. 2, 18, 23).* It was a " roll of a book " which
was spread before Ezekiel, written within and without with lamen-
tations and mourning and woe (Ezek. 2. 9, 10). The material of
* There can be little doubt that the alternative rendering, " columns," instead
of " leaves," given in the E.V. and the Variorum Bible, is right. The knife
which the king used was, as the note in the Variorum Bible explains, a scribe's
knife, used for erasing words wrongly written ; and this makes it probable that
the material of the roll was skin, not papyrus, on which a knife could hardly
be used, on account of its thinness of texture.
HEmtEw SvNAaoa de-Roll — Mtii Cent.
lOrieinal hHght, eieltidingZroUera, ia in.)
THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE, 21
which these rolls were made was not pa])yrus, however, but the
prepared skins of sheep and goats. Skins were used in the ancient
world as a material for books wherever papyrus was not obtain-
able ; when specially prepared for this purpose they form the
material known as parchment or vellum. It is possible, indeed
probable, that papyrus was imported into Palestine, as it was into
Greece, and was used concurrently with skins ; but the sacred
books seem always to have been written on the more durable
material.
If, then, we ask the question. Of what form were the original
manuscripts of the Bible ? the answer will be that the documents
from which the historical books of the Old Testa-
Porm of the ori- _ ., , .
ginal manuscripts ment were composed were very possibly m some
of the Bible. ^^g^g inscribed on clay tablets, but that the books
themselves were written on rolls, possibly of papyrus, but pro-
bably of skins, more or less carefully prepared. The later copies
were certainly on skins. Whether on papyrus or on skins, the
writing was arranged in colunms of moderate width, which take
the place of pages in a modern book. The skin or papyrus was
either wound up in a single roll, the end being inside, or else
wound round two sticks, one at each end, in which case it
was unrolled from the one and rolled up round the other as the
reader progressed. The latter form was stereotyped, at some date
early in the Christian period, as essential for copies of the Law
which were to be used in the service of the synagogue ; but copies
for private reading were written in book form when that shape
came into general use. Specimens of both kinds are still in
existence, and can be seen in many museums and public libraries.
Plate II., which is taken from a Hebrew Pentateuch roll in the
British Museum, written on goat-skin in the fourteenth century,
will serve to show the general appearance of this kind of book.
With regard to the original manuscripts of the books of the
New Testament, it is highly probable that many of them were
written on papyrus. Papyrus was still the common material of
the Greek literary world, and for books written by poor authors,
22 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
or for epistolary correspondence, it would almost certainly be used
rather than vellum. In Egypt, where some of the earliest copies
of the New Testament were made, papyrus would have been the
material employed, even for the most important and handsome
books. It has been remarked that the oldest vellum manuscripts
which we now possess, being written with many narrow columns
on a page, resemble in general appearance an open roll of papyrus
(see Plates VIII. and X., and the accompanying descriptions of
them) ; and from such a manuscript they may very likely have
been copied. When, however, the Christian Scriptures came to be
regarded as on the same level of importance as the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures (which was not at first the case), copies intended
for church or library use would be wTitten on vellum ; but for
private copies papyrus continued to be employed until the ex-
tinction of Greek writing in Egypt by the Arab conquest in the
seventh century. For copies of the translation into the native
Coptic tongue it continued to be used much later.
The visitor to the British Museum may still see manuscripts
which reproduce in external form the books of the Bible as they
were first written. In one of the exhibition-cases he will see the
great synagogue rolls of the Hebrew Scriptures, written on large
and heavy skins, and wound round great wooden rollers, a weight
too heavy to lift with comfort in the hand. Elsewhere he may see
the copies for common use, written on ordinary vellum in the
familiar book form. Among the earliest Greek manuscripts he
will find delicate papyrus rolls, now spread out under glass for their
protection, with their narrow columns of small writing, which may
well represent that in which the Gospels and Epistles were first
written down ; and finally he will see one of the earliest extant
copies of the Greek Bible written in handsome letters upon fine
vellum, the monument of a time when the Church was becoming
prosperous under a Christian Empire, and now one of the most
valuable witnesses to the original text of the Bible that has been
spared to us by the ravages of time.
K 28 )
CHAPTER IV.
THE HEBREW TEXT.
rpHE original manuscripts of the Hebrew books perished long
-^ ago, and the scholar who would find out, as near as may be,
the exact words which they contained, must, as we have seen,
begin by examining and comparing the copies, more or less dis-
tantly derived from these originals, which have come down to us..
What will he see then, when he opens one of the old Hebrew
volumes in one of our great libraries, and what will it tell him
concerning the text which it contains ?
In the first place he will see the page covered with characters
which to most people are quite unfamiliar. It is writing such as
that represented in Plate IV. The letters are generally of a
square shape, and underneath them are little dots and strokes.
The writing is usually arranged in columns, two or more going
to the page if the manuscript is in book form ; and the margins
are filled with other writing of similar appearance. What, now,
is the meaning of this? What is the history of the Hebrew
writing ?
The characters in which modern Hebrew manuscripts are
written are not the same as those which were in use when the
books of the Hebrew Scriptures were composed.
^^J^y®y In the time of the Jewish kingdom, Hebrew was
written in characters which were common to the
Hebrews themselves, the Samaritans, and the Phoenicians ; and
these characters, having been preserved by the Samaritans when
the Jews abandoned them, are known to us in the manuscripts of
the Samaritan Pentateuch (see Plate V.). The oldest form ini
which they are now extant is on the Moabite Stone, the famous'
monument on which Mesha, king of Moab, recorded his war with
24* OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPT8.
Ahab of Judah about the year 890 B.C.* Plate III. contains a
representation of this most valuable relic of antiquity as it stands
to-day in the Louvre Museum at Paris. Two centuries later they
appear in the Siloam Inscription (about B.C. 700), carved on the
conduit leading to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem. After this
date they appear on coins and later inscriptions, and, as just stated,
in MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Jewish story of the
origin of the " square " writing, as the later Hebrew characters are
called, is that Ezra brought it back with him from Babylon, and
that it was forthwith adopted for general use. This is only an
instance of the common habit of tradition, to assign to a single
man and a single moment a change which must have been spread
over several generations. The contemporary coins and inscriptions
enable us to trace the process, though imperfectly. In the first
place, the old stiff Hebrew characters were gradually modified,
after the Exile, so as to make them more cursive^ more easily
written, that is, in running hand ; a change partly due to the
example of the contemporary Aramaic writing in Syria and
Arabia. Then, by way of reaction from this, and with the
intention, no doubt, of making the writing of the sacred books
more beautiful, the square characters were developed, and were
thenceforth adopted as the essential form for the manuscripts of
the Scriptures. A similar phenomenon is seen in the case of the
Greek Bible, where we find the handsomest uncial writing {i,e, in
detached capital letters) springing up, in the fourth century, for
use in great copies of the Bible in the midst of a very debased and
unomamental style of cursive characters, of which many examples
have come down to us on papyrus. In the case of the Hebrew
writing, the change must have taken place before the time of our
Lord, for the proverbial use of "jot" {=yod, the tenth letter in
* The Moabite stone -was found by a Grennan Missionary, Herr Klein, in
1868, in the possession of some Arabs. It was then perfect, but before it was
acquired by M. Clermont-Gannean for the Louvre Museum, the Arabs had
broken it in pieces, and many of the fragments have never been recovered. It
can, however, be restored by the help of a pftper impression taken before it was
broken.
.^
Tile Moabitb Stone — Circ, e.c. 81
{Original height, about ifett.)
THE HEBBEW TEXT, 25
the Hebrew alphabet) to indicate a very small object (as in
Matt. 5. 18) would only be possible after the adoption of the square
characters, since in the earlier alphabet yod was by no means the
smallest letter.
The language in which the manuscripts we are examining are
written is, of course, Hebrew, a branch of the great Semitic family
of languages, which includes the Babylonian, As-
^^^^e^ Syrian, Chaldaean, Phoenician, and other tongues
spoken in Western Asia. It was the spoken lan-
guage of Palestine down to the time of the Exile ; and even after
that date, when Aramaic was adopted for ordinary use, Hebrew
remained the literary language of the educated Jews. It is written
from right to left, not from left to right as in our modern
European books. But the special peculiarity of it is that in its
original state only the consonants were imritten^ the vowels being
left to be filled up by the reader's mind. In the Hebrew manu-
script which we have supposed ourselves to be examining, the great
letters which form the lines of the writing are all consonants. The
vowels are indicated by the dots or points beneath these letters,
and these vowel-points are only a comparatively late invention, as
will be shown presently. This ancient practice of omitting the
vowels is one fertile cause of varieties in the text, for it will readily
be understood that doubts might often occur as to the proper
vowels to be supplied to a group of consonants. To take a
parallel from English, the consonants m r might be read either as
m(a)r(e) or m(i)r(e) or m(o)r(e), and it is quite possible that in
some cases the sense of the passage would not show for certain
which way was right. A glance at the notes of the Variorum
Bible will show that this danger is far from being imaginary; e.g.y
in Deut. 28. 22, either '* sword" or "drought" may be read,
according to the vowels supplied ; in Judg. 15. 16, "heaps upon
heaps " or " I have flayed them " ; in Isa. 27. 7, " them that are
slain by him " or " those that slew him '? ; and see Gen. 49. 5 and
Judg. 7. 13 for more extensive variations due to the same cause.
Besides the vowel points, accents are also added, to indicate
26 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
the rhythmical pronunciation of each word ; but these too are a
comparatively late invention.
The main division of the Hebrew Old Testament is a classi-
fication of the books into three groups, known as the Law, the
Arrangement of P^P^^^^- ft"<^ ^^^ Haprinp^mphft. or sacred writ-
the Books of the ings. The Law included the five books of Moses,
which we now call the Pentateuch. The Prophets
comprised the historical books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel,
1 and 2 Kings, which were known as "the Former Prophets"; and
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets, known
as "the Later Prophets." The Hagiographa consisted of the
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles.
The origin of this classification and of the inclusion of sevei^
historical and prophetic books among the Hagiographa, is un-
known ; but it almost certainly implies that those books were
written later, and were among the last to be recognised as inspired.
Divisions of the books themselves into reading-lessons, paragraphs,
and verses (very nearly corresponding to our modern verses) were
made in very early times ; but they are not of much importance
to us here. They are indicated in the manuscripts by blank spaces
of greater or lesser size.
So much for the external characteristics of the Hebrew manu-
scripts. What, now, is the history of the text of the books which
these manuscripts enshrine ?
The beginning of this history is necessarily obscure, because we
do not know the dates at which the various books of the Old
Testament were originally written. One school
SSKew Canon.* ^^ critics tells us that the Pentateuch was written
by Moses, substantially in the form in which we
now have it, before the year 1400 B.C. The newer school is posi-
tive that, although the substance of the books is old, yet they were
not finally put into their present shape until after the Exile, about
B-C. 400, and that even the principal documents out of which
they are composed were not written before B.C. 700. With these
THE HEBREW TEXT. 27
controversies respecting the dates of the various books we have
nothing here to do. Even if we take the latest date, it is still far
earlier than the eariiest period at which we have any evidence as
to the state of the text. The most we can do is to show, with
some approach to definiteness, at what periods the various books
were recognised as being inspired Scripture ; and it is from that
point that the care for their text may be supposed to have
commenced.
It seems tolerably certain that the three divisions of the books
of the Old Testament, mentioned just above, represent three stages
^ in the process known as the formation of the
i^ThflTw. Hebrew Canon of Scripture; that is, of the
authorised list of books recognised as sacred and
inspired. Whenever the books of the Pentateuch were written, it
is at least certain that they, constituting the Law, were the first
group of writings to be thus accepted. In the days of the kings
it was possible for the " book of the Law " (perhaps meaning our
Deuteronomy) to be lost and forgotten, and to be recovered as it
were by accident (2 Kings 22. 8) ; but the Captivity taught the
Jews to be careful of their Scriptures, and the Canon of the Law
may be taken as fixed about the time of the return from exile,
possibly under the guidance of Ezra, to whom Jewish tradition
assigned a special prominence in the work of collecting the sacred
books.* From this time forth the five books of Moses were
regarded as a thing apart. They were sacred ; and by degrees the
greatest care came to be devoted to copying them with perfect
accuracy and studying minutely every word that they contained.
There is reason to suppose that this extreme accuracy was not at
first required or obtained ; but in the time of our Lord it is clear
that the text of the Law was held in the utmost veneration, and the
* The Jews themselves attributed the formation of the whole Canon to
Ezra, with the help of elders composing a body known as ** The Great Syna-
gogue"; but it has been shown that this body is an imaginary one, and it is^
now generaUy recognised that the formation of the Canon must have been
gradual, following the stages here indicated.
28 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPT8,
class of the " scribes," wh6se special duty was to copy the sacred
books, was fully established and held in considerable esteem.
The second group of books to obtain recognition as inspired,
and to be adopted into the Canon, was that of the Prophets.
This must have taken place between the date of
^' '^etl^^' Malachi, the last of the Prophets, about 430 B.C.,
and the reference to " the twelve prophets " in
Ecclesiasticus 49. 10, written about 180 B.C. ; but the date cannot
be fixed precisely. The remaining group, known as the Hagio-
grapha, is of a miscellaneous character, and for some time the
books composing it evidently circulated on much
grapS.^^ ^^^ ^^^ footing as other books which were
eventually excluded from the Canon, such as
Judith, Tobit, and Ecclesiasticus. When the final decision was
reached, we cannot tell. On the one hand, the books which now
form our Old Testament appear already to be distinguished from
those which we class as Apocrypha before the time of our Lord ;*
on the other, a certain amount of discussion as to the inspiration
of some of the books (such as the Song of Solomon) continued at-
least until the end of the first century after Christ.
It is no part of our purpose here to discuss the question of the
formation of the Hebrew Canon in all its details. The point of
importance for us is that, taking the latest dates assigned by good
authorities, the Law was fully recognised as inspired Scripture by
about B.C. 450, the Prophets (including the earlier historical books)
about B.C. 300, and the Hagiographa about B.C. 100. From these
dates, then, at the latest, the special care for the preservation of
the text of these books must be supposed to begin. It would
seem, however, that this care was not at first so minute and pains-
taking as it afterwards became. During the early years of the
* It is noticeable that while there are many quotations in the New Testament
from each group of books in the Old, there is not a single direct quotation from
the Apocrypha. A similar distinction is found in Josephus and Philo. It
was probably only in Alexandria that the apocryphal books had equal
currency with the canonical.
THE HEBREW TEXT, 29
retiim from the Captivity, and throughout the wars of the Macca-
bees, there may well have been little time to spare for the labours
of scholarship, and the zeal of the Jews for their Scriptures may
well have related rather to their general contents than to the exact
details of their language. During the same period, too, it may be
remembered, came the change from the old to the square Hebrew
writing, which would naturally lead to errors in copying. With
the return of peace, however, came greater attention to study, and
in the famous schools of Hillel and ShamTnai. about the beginning
of the Christian era, we may find the origin of the long line of
Rabbis and scribes to whom is due the fixing of the Hebrew text
in the form in which we now have it. The fall of Jerusalem (a.d.
70) and the destruction of Judaea as a nation only intensified the
zeal of the Jews for their Bible ; and the first centuries of the
Christian era witnessed a great outburst of activity in the multipli-
cation, the transmission, and the recording of traditional learning
with respect to the Scriptures. The two great centres of Jewish
scholarship were Palestine and Babylonia, the former having its
headquarters successively at Jamnia and Tiberias, the latter in
Babylon, where a Jewish colony had remained since the days of
the Exile. It is from the records of these schools, each of which
preserved to some extent distinct traditions of text and interpre-
tation, that we derive our earliest direct knowledge of the Hebrew
text as it existed among the Jews themselves. Indirect evidence
for an earlier time may be derived, as we shall see, from the
Samaritan and Greek translations which have come down to us
from the pre-Christian period ; but in the present chapter we are
concerned with the Hebrew text alone.
The earliest direct evidence which we possess as to the text
current among the Jews themselves is that provided by the
Hist f th Targums, or paraphrases of the Scriptures into
Hebrew text: the Aramaic dialect. After their return from the
argnms. Q^p^iyj^y ^j^g jg^g gradually adopted this lan-
guage (a tongue closely related to Hebrew, being a kindred branch
of the same Semitic family of speech, sometimes called, as in the
f
80 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPT8.
margins of our Bibles, Chaldee) ; and it became thenceforth the cur-
rent language of ordinary life. Thus, it may be remarked by the
way, it was the language commonly spoken in JudaBa at the time of
our Lord's life on earth. Meanwhile the ancient Hebrew remained
as the language in which the sacred books were written, being
studied and preserved by the educated and literary class among the
Jews, but becoming continually less familiar to the common folk.
Hence arose the necessity of paraphrasing the Scriptures into the
current Aramaic tongue. At first these paraphrases were simply
given by word of mouth, as in the scene described in Neh. 8. 1-8,
when Ezra read the book of the Law before the people, "and
Jeshua and Bani and Sherebiah .... the Levites, caused the
people to understand the Law " ; but subsequently the method of
interpretation was reduced to a system, and written down, and
this practically became the popular Bible of the Jewish nation.
These written paraphrases are known as "Targmns," the word
itself probably meaning " paraphrase." In the form in which we
now have them, they probably represent accumulated layers of tra-
dition, going back to a time before the foundation of Christianity,
of which they show no knowledge ; but they did not reach their
present shape until a much later date. The Palestinian and Baby-
lonian schools possessed distinct Targums of their own. The best
of those that have come down to us is the Babylonian Targum on
the Pentateuch, which is ascribed to a writer named Onkelos (and
hence is cited in the Variorum Bible as Onk.). The date of this
is rather uncertain, Onkelos is sometimes identified with Aquila,
the author of a very literal translation of the Old Testament into
Greek {see p. 52), who lived in the second century after Christ ;
but the best opinion seems to be that this Targum was produced
in its present shape afcout the third century, on the basis of an
earlier paraphrase. It is a very simple and literal translation of
the Pentateuch, and is for that reason the more useful as evidence
for the Hebrew text from which it was taken. Of the other
Targums (cited collectively as Targ, in the Variorum Bible) much
the best is that which bears the name of jQnathanJben Uzziel, on
TBE HEBREW TEXT. 81
the Prophets (using that term in its technical sense, see p. 26).
It was written about the fourth century, and is somewhat more
free than that of Onkelos. There is also a Palestinian Targum on
the Law which is ascribed, but falsely, to this same Jonathan
(hence cited as Fs-Jon.) ; but this, which was probably not
written till the seventh century, and all the other Targums are of
small critical value compared with those of Onkelos and Jonathan.
It is not always possible to use the Targums as evidence for the
Hebrew text of the sacred books on which they are based, since
they at times paraphrase freely, inserting explanations, moderating
strong expressions, and otherwise introducing alterations. It is,
however, clear that the Hebrew text from which they were made
(that is, the text current in Judasa about the end of the first
century B.C., to which their tradition reaches back) was not iden-
tical with that which has come down to us. The student of the
Variorum Bible will find many passages in which they are quoted
as differing from the received text, sometimes for the better ; e.g.
Deut. 33. 26 ; Josh. 9. 4 ; Judg. 5. 30 ; 2 Sam. 18. 13 ; 1 Kin. 13. 12 ;
Ps. 100. 3 ; Isa. 49. 5 ; etc. They have this advantage at least
over most of the other versions, that whenever we can be sure of
the Hebrew text which they represent, we know that it was a
text accepted by the leaders of criticism among the Jews them-
selves.
The period of the Targums is overlapped by that of the
Talmud. While the Targumists paraphrased the Hebrew text,
« -« -. , the scholars known as the Talmudists explained
2. The Talmud. _ n . rm i. , • .
and commented on it. The fact that in ancient
Hebrew writing the vowels were entirely omitted led, as explained
above, to the occurrence of many words and phrases in which a
different sense could be obtained according as different vowels
were supplied. Hence plenty of scope was left to the ingenuity
of the Talmudists, who gradually accumulated a mass of tra-
dition concerning the proper reading and explanation of the text.
It does not appear that they themselves did much towards
fixing the actual text which appears in the manuscripts. On the
82 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
contrary, even in the earliest among the writings of the Tahnud,
the quotations from Scripture generally agree with our received
text ; the existence of a settled text of the Scriptures seems to be
implied, and the most minute rules are laid down to ensure
the faithful copying of this text by the scribes. The Talmudist
scholars did not by any means confine their attention to textual
matters ; on the contrary, the Talmud contains the essence of
many generations of traditional commentary of all kinds on the
sacred books, concentrated and approved by the judgment of the
leading scholars of the period.
/ The Talmudist period extends from about a.d. 270 to 500, and
is succeeded by that of the Massoretes. This is the final and
decisive stage in the history of the Hebrew text.
retes.*****" ^^^ about the beginning of the seventh century
the scholars whom we now call the Massoretes set
themselves to sift out from the mass of the Talmud the traditions
which bore on the actual text of the sacred books. Hitherto,
although the Talmudists had accumulated a great quantity of
tradition .concerning the correct vowel-punctuation of the Hebrew,
the vowel-points had not been introduced into the manuscripts in
use, and the textual traditions of the Talmudists were not separated
from the exegetical or explanatory. The work of the Massoretes
was to edit the Old Testament books in accordance with the tradi-
tions preserved in the Talmud. The head-quarters of the school
of Jewish doctors which undertook this labour was at Tiberias ;
but it was not the work of a single generation or of a single
place. The text was provided with points to indicate the vowels ;
and this in itself went far towards fixing the interpretation of
doubtful passages. In addition, the body of traditional remarks
handed down from previous generations was recorded, so far as it
related to strictly textual matters, with additions by the Massoretes
themselves, and the whole of this textual commentary received the
name of the " Massorah," which means " tradition." So far were
the Massoretes from introducing alterations into the actual text of
the sacred books, that, even where the traditional text was plainly
THE HEBREW TEXT. 38
wrong, they confined themselves to stating in the margin the
reading which they held to be superior. Such variations were
known by the names of Kri ("read") and Kthib ("written"), the
latter being the reading of the text, the former that of the margin,
which was to be substituted for the other when the passage waft
read. The Massorah is generally found in manuscripts in the
margins of the pages, surrounding the text ; and according as it
is given in a fuller or a more abbreviated form it is called the
Greater or the Lesser Massorah. Sometimes both are found
together. Thus in our illustration of a Hebrew MS. (Plate IV.) the
Lesser Massorah is written in the margins to the left of the columns,
and the Greater Massorah at the top and bottom of the page.
Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture,
the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not
enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They num-
bered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated
the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated
verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain
number of them ; and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly
consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to
the precise transmission of the text ; and they are but an excessive
manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself
deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious
that not one jot nor tittle — not one smallest letter nor one tiny
part of a letter — of the Law should pass away or be lost.
The importance of the Massoretic edition to us lies in the fact
that it is still the standard text of the Hebrew Bible. All the
The extant extant manuscrvpts of the Hebrew Old Testament
^^e'Sx \^^ contain substantially a Massoretic text
Massoretic. When once that revision was completed, such
precautions were taken to secure its preservation, to the
exclusion of any other form of text, as to make it certain that
the text has been handed down to us, not indeed without any
errors or variations, but without essential corruption. Extraordi-
nary care was taken to secure perfect accuracy in the transcription
S2764. C
34 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
of the sacred books. Especially was this the case with' the syna-
gogue rollSy or copies of the Pentateuch intended for use in the
synagogues. These were written on skins, fastened together so
as to form a roll, never in modern book form. Minute regu-
lations are laid down in the Talmud for their preparation.
. "A synaffoffue roll must be written on the skins
The copying of j -& &
Hebrew of clean animals, prepared for the particular use
anus p 8. ^^ ^^^ synagogue by a Jew. These must be
fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. Every
skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout
the entire codex.* The length of each column must not extend
over less than forty-eight, or more than sixty lines ; and the
breadth must consist of thirty letters. The whole copy must be
first lined ; and if three words be written in it without a line, it
is worthless. The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor
any other colour, and be prepared according to a definite receipt.
An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the tran-
scriber ought not in the least to deviate. No word or letter, not
even a yod^ must be written from memory, the scribe not having
looked at the codex before him Between every consonant
the space of a hair or thread must intervene ; between every word
the breadth of a narrow consonant ; between every new parshiah,
or section, the breadth of nine consonants ; between every book,
three lines. The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with
a line; but the rest need not do so. Besides this, the copyist
must sit in full Jewish dress, wash his whole body, not begin to
write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, and
should a king address him while writing that name he must take
no notice of him The rolls in which these regulations are
not observed are condemned to be buried in the ground or burned;
or they are banished to the schools; to be used as reading-books." f
* ** Codex " is a Greek word, meaning properly a manuscript arranged in
book form. It is, however, often used simply as equivalent to " manuscript "
generally.
t Davidson, Introduction to the Old Testament^ 1856, p. 89.
THE HEBREW TEXT. 35
Private or common copies were not subject to such precise
regulations. They are written in book form, sometimes on
vellum, sometimes on paper. Inks of various colours are used,
and the size of the columns is not necessarily uniform. The
Hebrew text is often accompanied by an Aramaic paraphrase,
arranged either in a parallel column or between the lines of the
Hebrew. In the upper and lower margins (generally speaking)
•
the Great Massorah may be written ; in the external side margins
are notes, comments, corrections, and indications of the divisions
of the text ; between the columns is the Lesser Massorah. Vowel
points and accents, which are forbidden in synagogue rolls, are
generally inserted in private copies ; but they were always written
separately, after the consonant-text had been finished.
It is under conditions such as these that the Massoretic text
has been handed down, from manuscript to manuscript, until the
invention of printing. Now what of the actual manuscripts
which are still in existence, stored away among the treasures of
our great libraries ?
It is generally rather a shock when one first learns that the
oldest extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament are no
earlier than the ninth century after Christ. That
^^SS. late'^^ ^ ^^ ^^y? *'^^y ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ hundred years later
than the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New
Testament, and that although the books of the New Testament
were written several centuries later than those of the Old. Over a
thousand years separate our earliest Hebrew manuscripts from the
date at which the latest of the books contained in them was origi-
nally written. It is a disquieting thought to those who know how
much a text may be corrupted or mutilated in the course of trans-
mission by manuscript over a long period of time ; how easy it is
for copyists to make mistakes, and how difficult it often is to
correct them subsequently. In the case of the Old Testament,
however, there are several considerations which greatly mitigate
this disquietude, and which account for the disappearance of the
earlier manuscripts. •
C 2
86 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
In the first place, the extreme care with which manuscripts were
written, as described above, is a guarantee against serious errors
having crept into all the copies which have come
but&itliM. , 1 ^ ^, .....
down to us. The comparison of existing manu-
scripts does indeed show that, in spite of all precautions, variations
have arisen ; but as a rule they are not of much importance.
Scholars are generally agreed that from a comparison of manu-
scripts, especially of those from the ninth to the twelfth centuries^
which are the oldest that we have, the Massoretic text can be
ascertained with almost complete certainty. The Masswetic text,
as we have seen, is substantially the same as that which we find
used by the writers of the Talmud, and the way in which the
writers of the Talmud speak of it shows that it had been in
existence for some time previously. We are thus able to conclude
that the manuscripts which we now possess have preserved for us
a text which was current in or soon after the time of our Lord.
One eminent modern writer declares that all our existing Hebrew
manuscripts descend from a single copy made in the reign of
Hadrian (a.d. 102-117), at the time of the great persecution of
the Jews by that emperor ; and most scholars would agree that the
origin of the Massoretic text goes back, at any rate, to somewhere
about that time. It is for the period before that date that the
evidence of the Hebrew manuscripts fails us. They do not carry
us back so far as the time of the actual composition of the several
books of the Old Testament ; but within their limits their evidence
may be accepted as trustworthy.
The same extreme care which was devoted to the transcription
of manuscripts is also at the bottom of the disappearance of the
. earlier copies. When a manuscript had been
of older copies, copied with the exactitude prescribed by the
Talmud, and had been duly verified, it was
accepted as authentic and regarded as being of equal value with
any other copy. If all were equally correct, age gave no advantage
to a manuscript ; on the contrary, age was a positive disadvantage,
since a manuscript was liable to become defaced or damaged in the
THE HEBREW TEXT, 37
lapse of time. A damaged or imperfect copy was at once con-
demned as unfit for use. Attached to each synagogue was a
** Gheniza," or lumber-cupboard, in which defective manuscripts
were laid aside ; and from these receptacles some of the oldest
manuscripts now extant have in modern times been recovered.
Thus, far from regarding an older copy of the Scriptures as more
valuable, the Jewish habit has been to prefer the newer, as being
the most perfect and free from damage. The older copies, once
consigned to the "Gheniza," naturally perished, either from
neglect or from being deliberately buried when the " Gheniza "
became overcrowded.
The absence of very old copies of the Hebrew Bible need not,
therefore, either surprise or disquiet us. If, to the causes already
enumerated, we add the repeated persecutions (involving much
destruction of property) to which the Jews have been subject, the
disappearance of the ancient manuscripts is adequately accounted
for, and those which remain may be accepted as preserving that
which alone they profess to preserve, namely the Massoretic text.
There is consequently not much to be said in the way of description
of individual manuscripts. When we come to speak of the Greek
text, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, we shall find it
both interesting and important to describe the chief manuscripts
with some minuteness, in respect of their age, their comparative
value, and the groups or families into which they fall. In none
of these respects is it possible to distinguish effectually between
Hebrew manuscripts. The reader of the Variorum Bible will
easily see this for himself ; for whereas in the New Testament the
readings of a considerable number of manuscripts are cited indi-
vidually, each manuscript being distinguished by its own letter, in
the Old Testament no manuscript is named individually. Since
all represent the same type of text, and none is conspicuously older
than the rest, there is little opportunity for marked pre-eminence.
Moreover, even the best authorities difPer widely both as to the age
and the relative value of different copies, so that we have no certain
ground beneath our feet.
38 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
The points to be taken into consideration in examining a
Hebrew manuscript are the following ; but it will be seen that
their importance is not very great : — First, whether
^Iw Mss'^ it was intended for public or private use ; since
those intended for the service of the synagogue,
like the great leather rolls of the Law, are most likely to be ac-
curately copied. Next, its age ; but on this head it is difficult to
arrive at any certainty. Many manuscripts contain a statement of
their date ; but these statements are extremely misleading and of
doubtful authenticity. Sometimes we do not know by what era
the date is calculated ; sometimes the date is evidently that of the
manuscript from which it was copied, not of the manuscript itself ;
sometimes, unfortunately, the date is simply fraudulent. And it is
not possible always to test such statements by the handwriting of
the manuscript, as can generally be done with Greek writings.
The best authorities differ so widely (in the case of one well-
known manuscript, one good authority assigns it to the tenth
century, and another to the fourteenth, while another copy has
been assigned to various dates between the sixth and the fifteenth
centuries) as to prove that the science of dating Hebrew writing is
very imperfect. It is more possible to distinguish the country in
which a manuscript has been written ; but even so our advantage
is small ; for while the Jews themselves have generally held manu-
scripts written in Spain to be the best, two most distinguished
scholars (the Englishman Kennicott, and the Italian De Rossi)
prefer those which were made in Germany. Finally, manuscripts
inay be distinguished as containing an Eastern or a Western text,
the former being derived from the school of Babylonia, the latter
froin that of Palestine. Each of these schools had its own Talmud,
each had a different system of vowel-punctuation, and each had a
certain number of textual variations peculiar to itself, which are
recorded in several manuscripts ; but these veiy rarely affect the
sense to any material extent.
Probably the oldest manuscript now in existence of any part of
the Hebrew Bible is one that was recently acquired by the British
iST^k5stl-ist-:?:B'tdP
J4|
■DVJJJlV
^™
Hebrew MS, — 9th Cent.
(Oi-iginat gilc, 16t in. X 1» in.)
THE HEBREW TEXT, 39
Museum, and of which a page is reproduced in Plate IV. It is
not dated, but its writing is of an earlier type than
extant MSS. ^^^^ ^^ ^^® earliest copies of which the precise
date is known, and it is consequently supposed
to have been written not later than the ninth century. It contains
the Pentateuch, written in book form (not as a roll), and is im-
perfect at the end. Both Greater and Lesser Massorah have been
added in the margins, the former at the top and bottom, the
latter at the side. The text is furnished with vowel-points and
accents ; the Massorah is without them in some places, but in
others, contrary to the usual practice, it has them. The passage
shown in the plate is the end of Genesis and the beginning of
Exodus (G^n. 50. 23— Exod. 2. 14).
The oldest manuscript containing a precise statement of its
date which can be trusted is the St. Petersburg manuscript of
the Prophets. This was written in the year 916, and contains
tiie " Later Prophets," written on vellum, in double columns, with
the Massorah between, below, and on the outer margin. The
accents and vowel-points are written above the letters, instead of
below, according to a system in use at Babylon. The text is
correctly written, and furnishes a strong proof of the truth of the
assertion that all extant Hebrew MSS. are descended from a single
copy i for although it contains an Eastern text, while the com-
monly-received text is based on Western MSS. (no Babylonian
MSS. having been known to exist until within the last thirty
years), and although it only came to light quite recently, long
after the formation of the received text, yet on a comparison of
it with a standard edition of the latter in a single book, that of
Ezekiel (in which the Massoretic. text is certainly often corrupt)^
it was found to contain only sixteen real variations from it.*
Similarly, the British Museum MS. of the Pentateuch is substan-
tially in full agreement with the received text.
Although these two copies have been described as the oldest
♦ Cornill, Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel^ p. 9.
40 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
now in existence, there are many others which claim a consider-
ably earlier date. There are quite a large number of such in
Eussia, one of which purports to have been corrected in the year
580, while others are dated 489, 639, 764, 781, 789, 798, besides
many of the ninth and tenth centuries. Unfortunately these dates
are universally discredited, and most of them are known to be
due to the fraudulent enterprise of a Jew named Firkowitzsch.
A manuscript in the Cambridge University Library bears the date
of 856, and the correctness of this date has been maintained by at
least one capable scholar ; but it is not generally accepted. Of
other manuscripts perhaps the most notable are (1) the Codex
Ben-Asher, now at Aleppo, supposed to have been written in the
tenth century, and held to be one of the best authorities for the
text of the Old Testament, though both its age and its value have
been strongly questioned ; (2) Codex Laudianus, at Oxford, con-
taining the whole Old Testament except a large part of Genesis,
numbered 1 by Kennicott, and held by him to have been written
in the tenth century and to contain a very important text ;
(3) No. 634 in the list of De Eossi, containing the Pentateuch,
assigned by him to the eighth century, by others to the tenth or
later. It seems useless to extend the list, in view of the great
doubts attaching to all dates, and to the general unimportance
of the divergencies.
One other source of knowledge for the Hebrew text should,
however, be mentioned, namely, readings quoted in the Middle
Ages from manuscripts since lost. The chief of
these is a manuscript known as the Codex Hillelis,
which was at one time supposed to date back to the great teacher
Hillel, before the time of our Lord. It is, however, probable that it
was really written after the sixth century. It was used by a Jewish
scholar in Spain, and a considerable number of its readings have
been preserved by references to it in various writers. Other lost
manuscripts are sometimes quoted, but less often, and their testi-
mony is less important*
The first portion of the Hebrew Bible to appear in print was the
THE HEBREW TEXT. 41
Psalms, which issued from the press, probably at Bologna in Italy,
in 1477. The first complete Old Testament fol-
HebMw text, lowed in 1488, at Soncino. Both these editions
were due to Jews. The first edition prepared by
a Christian scholar was that which appeared in the great Bible
printed by Cardinal Ximenes at Alcala (and hence known as the
Complutensian Bible, from Complutum, the Latin name of
Alcala),' in Spa'n, during the years 1514-1517. In this Bible
the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts were printed side by
side ; and it forms, as will be seen more fully hereafter, a most
important landmark in the story of the beginnings of Biblical
study in modem Europe. It was not, however, until the end of
the eighteenth century that scholars fairly took in hand the critical
study of the Hebrew text. The first collection of the evidence was
made by Bishop Kennicott, who published at Oxford in 1776-80
the readings of no less than 684 Hebrew manuscripts (giving,
however, only the consonants, without vowel points). He was
followed, in 1784-8, by the Italian scholar De Eossi, who published
collations of 825 more manuscripts. De Eossi used better MSS.,
on the whole, than Kennicott, but the general result of the labours
of both is the same. It is to them that the proof is due of the
fact that all Hebrew manuscripts represent the same text, namely
the Massoretic, and that without substantial variation. Other
manuscripts have come to light since their time, notably in Eussia,
where a number of MSS. of the Babylonian type were discovered
within our own day ; but, as has been shown above in the case of
«
the most important of these, the St. Petersburg MS. of the Pro-
phets, the conclusion established by Kennicott and De Eossi
remains undisturbed.
The result of our examination of the Hebrew text is, then, this.
"We have manuscripts which collectively give us a good represen-
tation of a text which reached its final shape about
ofresSS ^^ seventh century. We also have evidence that
the scholars who made this-final revision did not
substantially alter the text which had been in use for some five
42 OVB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
centuries previously. We may therefore be satipfied that the text of
Our Old Testament has been handed down without serious change
froin about aj). 100. Further back we cannot go with the aid of
the Hebrew manuscripts alone. The great, indeed all-important,
question which now meets us is this — Does this Hebrew text, which
we call MasBoretic^ and which we have shown to descend from a
text drawn up about aj). 100, faithfully represent the Hebrew text
as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament books ?
To answer this question it is necessary to bring up our second line
of authorities, described in Chapter II. We must refer to those
translations of the Old Testament into other languages which were
made before the date at which we have arrived. We must see
what evidence they can give us as to the Hebrew text from which
they were translated, and examine the extent and credibility of
that evidence. In this way alone can we hope to bridge over the
gap in our knowledge between the actual composition of the books
of the Old Testament and the text whose descent from about the
first century of the Christian era has been traced in this present
chaptei*.
( 43 )
CHAPTER V.
THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
IN August 1883 the world was startled by the annouucement
of a discovery which, if it were authentic, seemed to go far
towards bridging the great gap in our knowledge of which we
spoke at the end of the last chapter. This was no less than some
fragments of a manuscript of the Old Testament purporting to
have been written about eight hundred years before Christ, which
their owner, a Jew of the name of Shapira, stated that he had
obtained from some Arabs about five years before. The material
was old leather, and the writing was similar to that of the Moabite
Stone. The contents were striking enough. They purported to
be portions of the Book of Deuteronomy, but with many remark-
able variations. To the Ten Commandments was added an
eleventh, and the language of the others was altered and amplified.
In these strips of leather there was enough to cast doubt upon
the whole of the received text of the Old Testament and to dis-
credit the whole science of textual criticism o The sensation,
however, only lasted a few days. Evidences of forgery soon
began to pour ih ; and the final blow was given when it was
shown that the strips of leather on which the characters were
written had been cut from the margins of an ordinary synagogue
roll.
There is, indeed, no probability that we shall ever find manu-
scripts of the Hebrew text going back to a period before the
formation of the text which we know as Massoretic. We can
only arrive at an idea of it by a study of the earliest trans-
lations made from it ; and our task in the present chapter is to
describe these translations in turn.
44 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
§ 1. — ^The Samaritan Fentatench.
The version of the Old Testament which possesses the longest
pedigree is that which owes its existence to the Samaritans.
Strictly speaking, it is not a version at all, as it
is in the Hebrew tongue, though written in a
different character from that of the extant Hebrew MSS. It is
written in the old Hebrew character, such as it was before the
adoption by the Jews of the square characters, as described in the
last chapter (p. 24). The precise origin of this separate Samaritan
Bible has been a subject of dispute ; but the most probable account
is that it takes its rise in the events described in Neh. 13. 23-30,
namely, the expulsion by Nehemiah of those Jews who had
contracted marriages with the heathen. Among those expelled
was a grandson of the high-priest Eliashib, whose name, as we
learn from Josephus, was Manasseh. This Manasseh, in indigna-
tion at his expulsion, took refuge among tb^ Samaritans, and set
up among them a rival worship to that at Jerusalem. The
Samaritans, whom we know from 2 Kings 17. 24-41 to have been
foreigners imported into the country of the Ten Tribes by the
king of Assyria, and there, presumably, to have mingled with the
scanty remnant of Israelites, had at first incorporated the worship
of Jehovah, as the God of the land, into the worship of their own
gods ; and later, on the return of the Jews from captivity, had
been willing to join in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem,
but had been refused permission. Since this repulse they had
been bitterly hostile to the Jews, and the schism of Manasseh
gave them a head and a rival worship, which embittered and per-
petuated the quarrel. Manasseh obtained leave from Darius
Nothus, king of Pei-sia, to set up a temple on Mount Gerizim,
which became the centre of the new religion and the rival of
Jerusalem. He had brought with him, it is believed, the Hebrew
Pentateuch, and this, with certain alterations (notably the substi-
tution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. 27. 4 as the hill on which the
memorial altar should* be placed), became the sacred book of th^
THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, 45
Samaritans. As we have seen in the last chapter, probably this
was the only part of the Old Testament which had at that time
been definitely recognised as inspired Scripture by the Jews them-
selves ; and when the Prophets and Hagiographa were subse-
quently added to the Canon, the Samaritans refused to accept
them. They refused also to accept the square Hebrew characters
adopted by the Jews ; and we may be quite certain that they
would pay little respect to any alterations in the text, if such
there were, which were made by Jewish scribes and scholars after
the date of the original secession.
So far, then, it appears as if we had, in the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch, an invaluable means of testing the extent of the variation
which the Hebrew text has undergone since the
days of Nehemiah. We have an independent tra-
dition, coming down from about B.C. 408 (the date of Manasseh's
secession), without any contact with the Hebrew text, preserving
the original form of writing, and thereby avoiding one consider-
able source of possible error and corruption. No wonder that
when, in 1616, the first copy of the Samaritan Bible came to
light many scholars thought that they had obtained evidence for
the original text of the Old Testament far preferable to that of
the Hebrew manuscripts. The Samaritan community had existed
from the days of its first settlement by Sargon of Assyria until
then, and it exists still, a little community of about a hundred
persons, settled at Nablous, the ancient Shechem, and still observ-
ing the Mosaic Law ; but none of their sacred books had come to
light until, in that year, a copy was obtained by Pietro della Valle.
Several other copies have since been secured by travellers and are
now in European libraries. The first printed edition was issued
in the Paris Polyglott Bible in 1632, and for generations a hot
controversy raged among Biblical scholars as to the comparative
value of the Samaritan and Hebrew texts. At length, in 1815,
it was settled, for the time, by an elaborate examination of all the
variations by the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius, whose ver-
dict was wholly against the Samaritan version. He divided the
variations into groups, according to their character, and argued that
46 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
in hardly a single instance was a Samaritan reading to be pre-
ferred to that of the Hebrew. This opinion has held the field
until the present day ; but there seems to be a disposition now
to question its justice.
The Samaritan version has been estimated to differ from the
Hebrew in about 6,000 places. The great majority of these are of
very trifling importance, consisting of gramma-
tical alterations or the substitution of Samaritan
idioms for Hebrew. Others (as in Deut. 27. 4, quoted above) are
alterations of substance, so as to suit Samaritan ideas of ritual or
religion. Others contain supplements of apparent deficiencies by
the help of similar passages in other books, repetitions of speeches
and the like from parallel passages, the remov&,l of obscurities or
insertion of explanatory words or sentences, or distinct differences
of reading. In all these latter cases there may evidently be
two opinions as to whether the Samaritan or the Hebrew read-
ing is preferable. The apparent deficiencies in the Hebrew may
be real, the obscurities may be due to error, and the Samaritan
text may be nearer to the original language. This probability
is greatly increased when we find that in many passages where
the Samaritan version differs from the Hebrew, the Greek Septua-
gint version (of which we shall speak presently) agrees with the
\ former. For example, the Samaritan and Hebrew texts differ
very frequently as to the ages of the patriarchs mentioned in the
early chapters of Genesis. Gesenius classified these variations as
alterations introduced on grounds of suitability ; but it is at least
possible that they are not alterations at all, but the original text,
and that the numbers have become corrupt in the Hebrew text ;
and this possibility is turned into a probability when we find the
Septuagint supporting the Samaritan readings. There is no
satisfactory proof of either the Septuagint or the Samaritan text
having been corrected from the other, nor is it in itself likely ; and
their independent evidence is extremely difficult to explain away.
Hence scholars are now becoming more disposed to think favour-
ably of the Samaritan readings. Many of them may be errors,
many more may be unimportant, but there remain several which
I!fi!« li I! sa [UH I,
im
T I
I i
THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH, 47
are of real value. The editors of the Variorum Bible give thirty-
five variations of the Samaritan text in the five books of the
Pentateuch as. being either equal or superior to the Hebrew
readings. Ajnong these may be mentioned, for the sake of
example, Gen. 4. 8, where the Samaritan has "Cain said to
Abel his brother, Let us go into the field"; 47. 21, "As for
the people he made slaves of them," instead of "he removed
them to cities " ; Exod. 12. 40, the 430 years of the sojourning
of the children of Israel are said to have been in Egypt
and in Canaan (thus agreeing with Q-al. 3. 17), instead of in
Egypt only ; Num. 4. 14, the following words are added at the
end of the verse, " And they shall take a cloth of purple, and cover
the laver and his foot, and put it into a covering of seals' skins,
and shall put them upon a frame " ; and in Deut. 32. 35 the first
half of the verse runs " against the day of vengeance and recom-
pence ; against the time when their foot shall slip." These are
perhaps the most notable of the Samaritan variants, and it is
observable that in every case the Septuagint confirms -them. The
general result of the comparison of this and the other versions
with the Hebrew text must be reserved to the end of the chapter ;
meanwhile it will be sufficient to observe that these variations,
though sufficient to arouse our interest, are not serious enough to
cause any disquietude as to the substantial integrity of the text of
our Old Testament.
No manuscript of the Samaritan Bible (so far as is known) is
older than the tenth century. It is true the Samaritan community
at Nablous cherishes a precious roll, which it
maintains to nave been written by Abisha, the
great-grandson of Moses, in the thirteenth year after the conquest
of Canaan ; but this story, which rests on the authority of an
inscription said to be found in the MS. itself, may very safely be
dismissed. The MS., of which a photograph forms our frontis-
piece, is written in letters of gold, and is rolled upon silver
rollers with round knobs at the top. The MS. of which we give
a reproduction in Plate V. is at Eome, and is said to have
been written in the year 1227. It will be seen that the three
48 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
columns are all in the same style of writing, bat each contains
a different dialect. The right-hand column contains the Hebrew
text of Gen. 47. 1-6, as preserved among the Samaritans ; it is,
in fact, what is commonly called the Samaritan Version, and what
we have been describing above. The left-hand column contains a
Samaritan Targum, or paraphrase of the text in the current Samari-
tan dialect ; and in the centre is an Arabic translation of the
Samaritan version, originally made in the year 1070. All three
columns are written in the Samaritan or old Hebrew characters, and
represent the form of writing in which the books of the Old
Testament were originally written ^down. All the existing manu-
scripts of the Samaritan version are written on either vellum or paper
(in this instance vellum is used), in the shape of books (not rolls,
with the exception of three rolls at Nablous), without any vowel-
points or accents, but with punctuation to divide words and sen-
tences. The whole of the Pentateuch is divided into 964 paragraphs.
§ 2.— The Septoagint and other Greek Versions.
Two considerations make the Samaritan version of the Old
Testament less important than it would otherwise be. In the first
place, it contains only the Pentateuch ; and it is just this part of
the Old Testament which is best preserved in the Hebrew text,
and consequently needs least correction. Secondly, none of the
extant copies of it is older than the tenth century, so that they are
as far removed from the fountain head as the Hebrew manuscripts
themselves. Neither of these drawbacks applies to the Greek
version, of which we have now to speak. It is a complete transla-
tion of the Old Testament, containing, indeed, not only the books
which now compose our Old Testament, but also those which, after
a considerable period of uncertainty, were finally excluded from
the Hebrew Canon and now constitute our Apocrypha. Further, it
is preserved in several manuscripts of very great age, the earliest,
as we shall see presently, going back to the fourth and fifth cen-
turies after Christ. In every respect, both textually and historically,
the Greek version of the Old Testament is by far the most impor-
tant of all the ancient translations. On the one hand, it is ou f
THE 8EPTUAGINT, 49
chief means of testing the accuracy of the Massoretic Hebrew text,
and of correcting it when it is wrong ; and, on the other, it has
been the Bible of Greek Christendom from the earliest age of
Christianity down to this present day. It will consequently require
and deserve a somewhat extended notice at our hands.
The first questions to be answered are those that relate to its
origin. When was it made ? Why was it made ? For whom was
it made ? Curious as it may seem at first sight,
Septuagint.* this Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible was
made in a land which was neither Greek nor
Hebrew, namely Egypt. After the submission of Egypt to Alex-
ander the Great, and the introduction of Greek settlers under
Ptolemy, his lieutenant, Alexandria became the headquarters alike
of the commerce and the literature of the East. Its population,
mainly Greek, included also a large colony of Jews. Greek became
the common language of intercourse between people of different
nationalities in the East, and the Jews in Egypt learnt, before long,
to use it as their native tongue. Hence there arose the necessity
of having their Scriptures accessible in Greek ; and the answer to
this demand was the version known as the Septuagint. The story
which was long current as to its origin is largely mythical, but it
contains a kernel of truth. In a letter purporting to be written
by one Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, in the reign of Ptolemy
Philadelphus (b.c. 284-247), it is said that king Ptolemy, hearing
of the Jewish Scriptures, and being urged by his Jibrarian to
obtain a copy of them for his great library at Alexandria, sent an
embassy (of which the writer of the letter was one) to the high
priest at Jerusalem with magnificent presents, begging him to send a
copy of the sacred books, with a body of men capable of translating
them. Thereupon six translators were selected from each of the
twelve tribes and despatched to Alexandria, bearing with them a
copy of the Law, written in letters of gold. They were splendidly
received by the king, and, after a banquet and public display of
they? wisdom, set about their task of translation, working separately
in the first instance, but afterwards comparing their results, and
S2764 D
50 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
finally producing the version which was thenceforth known as the
Septuagint, or the Version of the Seventy. Later generations
improved upon this story, until the legend ran that each of the
seventy-two translators was shut up in a separate cell (or by
pairs in 86 cells) and each produced a translation of the whole
Old Testament in exactly seventy-two days ; and when their trans-
lations were compared it was found that they all agreed precisely
with one another, in every word and every phrase, thus proving
that their version was directly inspired by God. This, how-
ever, is merely an exaggeration of the original story, which
itself is now generally believed to be an exaggeration of the real
•facts, at least in respect of the special and magnificent patron-
\ age of Ptolemy. What is true is that the S6ptuagint version was
made in or about his reign, in Alexandria, and that the Pentateuch
was probably translated first. The other books were added later,
by diiferent translators and at different times. The style of
translation differs so markedly in different books as to prove
that the whole Testament cannot have been the work of a
single group of translators, while some of the later books, such
as Ecclesiasticus, were not even written at the time of which the
story speaks.
The Septuagint version, as finally completed, contains not merely
the books which now form our Old Testament, but also those
which, since the Eeformation, have been placed
apart in the Apocrypha.* Some of these books
(2 Esdras, the additions to Esther, Wisdom, part of Baruch, the
* It is unfortunate that the Apocrypha is generally omitted from copies of
the English Bible. No doubt a little explanation of the nature of the books
contained in it is needed by most people, but that infonnation is now easily
accessible in many popular handbooks, e.g., in the Kev. C. H. H. "Wright's
article in the Variorum Aids to the Bible Student, The Variorum Apocrypha^
also, by the Rev. C. J. Ball, can be confidently recommended as containing ex-
cellent critical and (in the fonn of " various renderings ") explanatory notes.
These are especially valuable, since, in the absence (as yet) of any Eevised
Version of the Apocrypha, the ordinary reader has no means of knowing how
far the Authorised Version is trustworthy ; and they also, of course, contain
much which no Revised Version can possibly give.
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 51
Song of the Three Children, 2 Maccabees) never existed in
Hebrew at all ; but the others were originally wiitten in Hebrew
and circulated ampng the Jews for some time on very much the
same footing as some of the books which form the section of the
Hagiographa (p. 28). They never, however, attained the same
position of authority, and when the Canon of the Old Testament
was finally closed, they were left outside. From this point dates
their disappearance in their Hebrew form ; they ceased to be
copied in Hebrew ; and so they have come down to us only in the
Greek, or in translations made from the Greek. Jerome rejected
them from his Latin Bible because they were not extant in
Hebrew ; but the older Latin translations of them were subse-
quently incorporated into the Vulgate, and they have remained in
the Latin Bible of the Eoman Church to the present day. The
Septuagint is, however, their real home, and there they take their
proper places among the books of the Old Testament. The First
Book of Esdras takes precedence of the Book of Ezra, of which it
is an alternative version with some additions. After the Book of
Nehemiah (which, in conjunction with the canonical Ezra, is
called the Second Book of Ezra) come, in the principal manuscript
of the Septuagint, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of
Solomon, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom of Sirach),
Esther (including the parte now banished to the Apocrypha),
Judith, Tobit. Then follow the Prophets ; but Jeremiah is
succeeded by Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle of Jeremiah
(==Baruch, ch. 6), and Daniel by Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.
Finally the Old Testament is concluded by the books of the
Maccabees, of which there are, in some of the earliest copies, four
instead of only two.
When the Septuagint translation was completed, it became at
once the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews, and circulated in
Palestine and Asia as well as in Egypt, the home
GreefcSpeakhig ^^ ^^^ birth. At the time of our Lord's life on
Jews and the earth, Greek was the literary lan^uaffe of Pales-
Christian Chnrcli. ' J & &
tine, as Aramaic was the spoken language of the ,
D 2 '
I
52 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
common people. Hebrew was known only to the small class of
students, headed by the Rabbis and the scribes. All the books of
the New Testament (with the possible exception of the Gospel
of St. Matthew in its original form) were written in Greek ; and
most of the quotations from the Old Testament which appear in
them are taken from the Septuagint version, not from the original
Hebrew. As Christianity spread beyond the borders of Palestine,
Greek was necessarily the language in which it appealed alike to
the Jew and to the Gentile ; and when, in speaking to the former,
it based its claim on the fulfilment of prophecy, it was in the
language of the Septuagint version that the prophecies were quoted.
The Christian Church adopted the Septuagint as its own Book of
the Old Covenant, and looked to that as its Bible long before
it had come to realise that its own writings would take a place
beside it as equally sacred Scripture.
The result of this appropriation of the Septuagint by the Chris-
tian Church was that the Jews cast it off. When the Christians
R* 1 1 la- ^^ controversy pressed them with quotations from
tions in the the Prophets, of which the fulfilment had been
found in Jesus Christ, the Jews took refuge in a
denial of the accuracy of the Septuagint translation. In the
second century of our era this repudiation took form in the pro-
duction of rival versions. The Hebrew text had been fixed, in
the form in which it has come down to us, in the preceding
century, and what was now needed was a faithful translation of
this into Greek for the use of Greek-speaking Jews. The pro-
duction of such a translation was the work of
Aquila, who may be identical with the Onkelos
to whom is ascribed the principal Targum on the Pentateuch
(see p. 30). The name is the same, in a Latin dress, and the
spirit in which the translation was executed is the same. The
version of Aquila is an exceedingly bald and literal rendering of
the Hebrew, adhering to the original so closely as to lose most of
the Greek idiom, and often falling into obscurity and even non-
sense. Aquila is said to have been a disciple of the celebrated
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 53
Eabbi Akiba, the chief and leader of the extremest anti-Christian
Jews at the end of the first century, and his version, which must
have been made somewhere about the year 150, became the official
Greek translation of the Scriptures in use among the non-Chris-
tian Jews. Later in the same century another translation was
made, upon the opposite side, by Theodotiox, a
Christian, said to have been a native of Ephesus.
Theodotion's translation resembled Aquila's in being based upon
the authorised Jewish text of the Old Testament (though retain-
ing the apocryphal additions to the Book of Daniel), but was exactly
contrary in its treatment of it, being very free in its rendering of
the original. Xaturally enough, it received no countenance from
the Jews, but it obtained much popularity aniong Christians, and
exercised a considerable influence upon the subsequent history of
the Septuagint, Notably was this the case in respect of the Books
of Daniel and Job, Theodotion's version of Daniel was so much
preferred to that of the Septuagint, that it actually took its place
in the manuscripts of the Septuagint itself, and the original
Septuagint version has only come down to us in one single copy,
written in the ninth century. In the case of Job, the Septuagint
•version did not contain many passages (amounting to about
one-sixth of the book in all) which appear in the received or
Massoretic text of the Hebrew ; and these were supplied in the
Septuagint from the version of Theodotion. It is possible that
something of the same sort may have occurred in other books,
but the proof is at present incomplete. Yet one other Greek
version of the Old Testament remains to be mentioned, that
of Symmachus, which was made about the year
^™ • 200. The special feature of this translation is
the literary skill and taste with which the Hebrew phrases of
the original are rendered into good and idiomatic Greek. In
this respect Symmachus approaches nearer than any of his
rivals to the modern conception of a translator's duty ; but he
had less influence than any of them on the history of the Greek
Bible. Curiously enough, he had more influence upon the Latin
54 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENf MANUSCRIPTS.
- ■ — — ■ - - - ■ ■ - — ■■■ ■ ■ -■- ■ -- ■
Bible ; for Jerome made considerable use of him in the preparation
of the Vulgate.
At the beginning of the third century there were thus three
/ Greek versions of the Old Testament in existence, besides the
Septuagint itself. The next step, and one of
IseptBf^t: * niuch importance in the history of the Greek
1. Origen's Hexa- text, was taken by the great Alexandrian scholar,
Origen, whose life occupies the first half of the
third century (a.d. 186-253). Finding all these various, and often
conflicting, versions of the Scriptures existing side by side, he
determined to draw them together, and to try to use them for the
production of one more perfect version than them all. Accord-
ingly, with that stupendous energy which earned for him the
admiration of his contemporaries and of posterity, he set about the
colossal work to which was given the name of the Hexapla^ or
" sixfold " version of the Old Testament Scriptures. In six
parallel columns, at each opening of his book, were arrayed the
following six different versions : — (1) The Hebrew text then
current (substantially identical with the Massoretic text) ; (2) the
Hebrew text in Greek letters ; (3) the Gr^ek translation of Aquila
(placed here as being the nearest to the Hebrew in fidelity) ;
(4) the translation of Symmachus ; (5) the Septuagint, as revised
by Origen himself ; (6) the translation of Theodotion, coming last
in the series as being the furthest removed in style from the
original.* The last four columns seem to have existed in a
separate form, known as the Tetrapla, or fourfold version, which
was probably a later reproduction in handier size of the more
important part of Origen's work ; but in any case the Hexapla,
whether earlier or later, is the complete and authoritative form
of it. So huge a work as this (the Old Testament is rarely
* In some books (chiefly the poetical ones, it would seem) three other Greek
versions were appended. These were obscure translations which Origen had
discovered, and their importance seems to have been small. Very little of
them has been preserved, and their authors do not seem to have been known to
Origen himself. They are simply called the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh versions.
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 55
contained entire in any manuscript in a single version, and thi&
contained it in six I) was not likely to be copied as a whole.
The original manuscript still existed at Caesarea at the begin-
ning of the seventh century, but it perished shortly afterwards,
and of all its columns, except the fifth, no complete repre-
sentation has come down to us. It is with this fifth column,
however, that we are principally concerned, since it contained
Origen's edition of the Septuagint, and this edition had a consider*
able influence on the text of the version in subsequent ages.
Unfortunately, Origen's efforts were not directed towards the
recovery of the original form of the Septuagint, but at bringing it
into harmony with the Hebrew text then current, and to do this
he introduced alterations into it with the utmost freedom. At the
same time he tried to indicate all such alterations by the use of
certain symbols. Passages occurring in the Septuagint which
were not found in the Hebrew were marked by an ohelibs ( — ) ;
passages occurring in the Hebrew but not in the Septuagint were
inserted in the latter from the version of Theodotion, such inser-
tions being marked by an asterisk (>><• or -rtf) ; a metolelvs (y^)
in each case marking the end of the passage in question. P6r
Origen's purpose, which was the production of a Greek version
corresponding as closely as possible with the Hebrew text as then
settled, this procedure was well enough ; but for ours, which is the
recovery of the original Septuagint text as evidence for what the
Hebrew ivas before the formation of the Massoretic text, it was
most unfortunate, since there was a natural tendency for his
edition to be copied without the critical symbols, and thus for the
additions made by him from Theodotion to appear as part of the
genuine and original Septuagint. This has certainly happened in
some cases; it is difficult to say with certainty in how many.
Fortunately we are not left without some means of discovering these
insertions, for in the year 617, shortly before the disappearance of
the original manuscript of the Hexapla, Bishop Paulus, of Telia
in Mesopotamia, made a Syriac translation of the column contain-
ing the Septuagint, copying faithfully into it the critical symbols
56 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPT8,
of Origen ; and a copy of part of this, written in the eighth
xjentury, is still extant (in the Ambrosian library at Milan),
containing the Prophets and most of the Hagiographa.* For the
Pentateuch the chief authority is a Q-reek manuscript at Leyden,
written in the fifth century, and known as the Codex Sarravianus ;
and a few other manuscripts exist, likewise containing an Origenian
text, some of which will be described below. There are thus fair
means for recovering the Septuagint column of Origen's great
work. The versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmaohus have,
however, for the most part perished. No manuscript exists which
contains any continuous portion of them, except those parts of
Theodotion which were incorporated in the received text of the
Septuagint ; but a very large number of individual readings have
been preserved in the margin of Septuagint MSS., and these have
been collected and arranged with great skill and cape in the two
portly volumes of Dr. Field's edition of the Hexapla, published by
the Oxford University Press in 1875.
Origen's own colossal work went to the ground, but the part of
it which was most important in his eyes, and the ultimate object
of the whole-^the revised text of the Septuagint — survived, and
had a most noteworthy influence on the subsequent history of the
version. At the beginning of the third century, we find a sudden
crop of new editions of the Septuagint, all more or less afiFected by
his work. Three such are known to us, and they are of great
importance for our present purpose, as we shall see when we come
to describe the form in which the Septuagint has come down to us.
EeDrodnced bv "^^^^ three editions are those of (1) Eusebius of
Ensebius and CaBsarea, (2) Lucian, (3) Hesychius. Eusebius
of Caesarea, the first great historian of Christia-
nity, with the assistance of his friend Pamphilus, produced
* The Ambrosian MS. contains Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of
Solomon, and the Prophets. The first volume of this MS. was in existence in
1674, but has since disappeared. On the other hand, fragments of other MSS.
have been discovered, and are now in the British Museum, containing Exodus
and Euth complete, and portions of Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, and 1 and 2 Kings.
THE SEPTUAGINT,
67
2. Lncian.
3. HesycMns.
Origen's text of the Septuagint (the fifth column of the Hexapla)
as an independent edition, with alternative readings from the other
versions in the margin. Lucian of Samosata, !
a leading scholar at Antioch, produced another
edition, of which the most marked characteristic was his habit,
when he found different words or phrases in different copies, to
combine them into a composite phrase, and so to preserve both.
In the next chapter we shall see reason to believe that a similar
course has been followed in the case of the New Testament at some
period of its history. Lucian suffered martyrdom during the
persecution of Maximus, in a.d. 311 ; and the same fate is believed
to have befallen Hesychius, the author of the
third edition of the Septuagint during the period
of which we are speaking. Of the character of this version very
Uttle is known at present ; but there is reason to hope that a
fuller study of the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint may
increase our knowledge of it. These three editions were practi-
cally contemporary, and must all have been produced about the
year 800. Each circulated in a different region. The edition of
Eusebius and Pamphilus was generally used in Palestine ; that of
Lucian had its home in Antioch, and was also accepted in Con-
stantinople and Asia Minor, while Hesychius was a scholar of
Alexandria, and his edition circulated in Egypt.
The following diagram will roughly illustrate the origin of these
three editions, and their respective degrees of approach to the
Hebrew text : —
Oripinal&ct.
AD.
JOO.
Ma^reUcTkU •
000..
400
ea;.
UaYcfUus
JVeutrtu 'i
Tcjct
lucian:
Text-
Greek. NSS
BebrarMSS.
68 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPTS,
I ' ' ■ ... . .1
After the beginning of the fourth century the Septuagint, so far
as we know, underwent no further revision, and it is unnecessary
The present Stat ^ *^^ ^^ history beyond this point. In one
of the Septua^ form or another, and gradually becoming cor-
^** rupted in all by the errors of copyists, it
continued to be, as it is to this day, the Old Testament of the
Greek or Eastern Church. We have now to begin at the other end,
and ask in what form it has come down to us, and what means we
have of ascertaining its original text. And the method of this
inquiry must be exactly the same as we have already applied in
the case of the Hebrew text, and as we shall again have to apply
when we come to the Greek text of the New Testament. We have
to ask, primarily, in what manuscripts it has come down to us,
what are their age and character, and into what groups they can
be divided ; and then it will be necessary to ask further whether
any light can be thrown upon its history by the translations which
have been made from it in ancient times, and by the quotations
made from it by the early Christian Fathers.
We have seen in the last chapter that no copy of the Hebrew
Bible now extant was written earlier than the ninth century, while
those of the Samaritan Pentateuch only go back
Septuagint! ^ ^^^ tenth. The oldest copies of the Greek
Bible are, however, of far greater antiquity than
this, and take rank as the most venerable, as well as the most
valuable, authorities for the Bible text which now survive. The
oldest and best of them contain the New Testament as well as the
Old, and will have to be described again in greater detail (since
the New Testament portion has generally been more minutely
studied than the Old) in a subsequent chapter. But a short
account of them must be given here.
Greek manuscripts are divided into two classes, according to the
style of their writing. Putting aside those written on papyrus (of
which, so far as the Bible is concerned, only a
cuMi^ MSS. ^^^ small fragments have as yet been discovered),
it may be said broadly that all the earlier manu-
THE SEPTUAGINT. 59
scripts, from the fourth century to the ninth, are written in what
is known as uncial writing, and all the later ones, from the ninth
century to the invention of printing, in cursive or minuscule writ- }
ing. In uncial writing all the letters are large and are formed^
separately {see Plates VI., VIII. — XIII.) ; minuscules are small {see
Plate XIV.), and are generally linked together in a running
hand, whence they have received the name of cursive (= " run-
ning"), which is their commoner, but less exact, designation.
For convenience of reference, each manuscript has, in addition
to its name, a letter or number by which it is commonly denoted.
Uncial manuscripts are indicated by capital letters, cursives (in
the case of the Septuagint) by numbers. The former, being the
older, are generally the most valuable, and they alone require or
deserve individual description. About thirty such manuscripts
exist for the Septuagint, but many of these are mere fragments,
containing only a few leaves, and only two are even approximately
complete. The following is a list of them, in the alphabetical
order of the letters by which they are commonly indicated, with
fuller descriptions of the most important : —
{J_ {Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) stands for
the famous Codex Sinaiticus, one of the two oldest copies of the
"Greek Bible] TETstory of the romantic discovery of this manu-
script in the present century, when part of it was in the very act
of being consumed as fuel, must be reserved for Chapter VII.
For the present it must suffice to say that it was discovered by the
great German Biblical scholar, Constantine Tischendorf, in 1844,
in the monastery of St. Catherine, at Mt. Sinai. At his first visit
he secured forty-three leaves belonging to the Old Testament, and
presented them to his patron. King Frederick Augustus of Saxony,
who placed them in the Court Library at Leipzig, where they still
remain, with the name of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus. A
subsequent visit brought to light 156 more leaves of the Old
Testament and the whole of the New Testament ; and these ulti-
mately found a home in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg,
and are known as the Codex Sinaiticus. Parts of a few more
60 OUB BIBLE AJ^TD THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPTS.
leaves were subsequently discovered in the bindings of other
manuscripts i^ the library of Mt. Sinai. The manuscript was
written in the fourth century, in a beautiful uncial hand ; and it
is extremely unfortunate that so much of the Old Testament has
been lost. The parts which survive include fragments of Genesis
23, 24, and of Num. 5, 6, 7 ; 1 Chron. 9. 27—19. 17 ; 2 Esdras
[{.e, canonical Ezra] 9. 9 to end ; Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit,
Judith, 1 Mace, 4 Mace, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lament. 1. 1 — 2. 20,
Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum to Malachi, Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Sbng of Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Job. Four
different scribes were employed on the writing of it, besides
several correctors. A facsimile of a page of this beautiful and
most valuable manuscript is given in Plate VIII.
A* Codex Alexandrinns, in the British Museum. This was
probably written in the first half of the fifth century, and contains
the whole Bible, except Gen. 14. 14-^17; 15. 1-5, 16-19 ; 16. 6-9 ;
1 Kings 12. 20—14. 9 ; Ps. 50, 20—80. 11, and some parts of the
New Testament, which have been lost through accidental mutila-
tion. It includes all four books of the Maccabees, for which it is
the principal authority. Before the Psalms are placed the Epistle
of Athanasius to Marcellinns on the Psalter, and the summary
of the contents of the Psalms hj Eusebius, At the end of the
Psalms is an additional psalm (the 151st), which is found in
some other early manuscripts, and a number of canticles, or chants,
extracted from other parts of the Bible (for instance, the songs of
Moses, in Deut. 32, of Hannah, in 1 Sam* 2. 1-10, and the Magni-
ficat) which were used in the services of the Church. The apo-
cryphal Psalms of Solomon were originally added at the end of the
New Testament, but the leaves containing them have been lost.
For the history of the manuscript and a specimen of its writing,
see pp. 128-132 and Plate IX.
B. Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library at Eome. It con-
tains the whole Bible, written in the fourth century, and is at once
the oldest and probably the ^ best extant copy of the Septuagint.
It is nearly perfect, wanting only Gen. 1. 1 — 46. 28 ; 2 Kings 2. 5-7,
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 61
10-13 ; Ps. 108. 27 — 133. 6 of its original contents, so far as the
Old Testament is concerned ; bat the Prayer of Manasses and the
books of Maccabees were never, included in it. The text of the
current editions of the Septuagint are mainly derived from this
manuscript. {See pp. 132-137 and Plate X.)
C. Codex Ephraemi, in the National Library at Paris. {See pp./
137-139 and Plate XT.) This is di. palimpsest ; that is, the original!
writing has been partially washed or scraped out in order that the
vellum might be used again to hold some other work, — in this case
a theological treatise. The result is that only parts of the original
writing can now be read ; and, in addition, most of the leaves con-
taining the Old Testament have been lost. The 64 leaves which
remain contain parts of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, and the Song of Solomon, written in the fifth
century.
The manuscripts hitherto mentioned were originally com-
plete Greek Bibles, containing both the Old and the New
Testaments. Those which follow do not appear ever to have
included the New Testament, and many of them only a portion
of the Old.
D. The Cotton Genesis. One of the most lamentable sights in ^
the Manuscript Department of the British Museum is that of the j
charred remains of many manuscripts of the greatest value which
were burnt in the fire among Sir E. Cotton's books in 1731.
Perhaps the most valuable of all the volumes then destroyed was
this copy of the Book of Genesis, written in a fine uncial hand of
the fifth century, and adorned with 250 illustrations in a manner
evidently derived directly from the ancient Greek style of painting.
The remains of this once beautiful manuscript still show the
general character of the writing and the miniatures, but in a
lamentably shrunken and defaced condition. Fortunately the
manuscript had been examined and its text carefully collated by
Grabe before the fire ; and from this collation its evidence for the
text of Genesis is now known.
E. The Bodleian (Genesis, at Oxford. Written in the eighth
62 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS^
century, but though thus considerably later than the copies hitherto
mentioned, it contains a good text. The following passages are
wanting, owing to mutilation of the manuscript : Gen. 14. 6 — 18. 24,
20. 14—24. 54, 42. 18 to end of book.
F. Codex AmbrosiaiiTis, at Milan. "Written in the fifth century,
with three columns to the page, and having (what is very unusual
in early manuscripts) punctuation, accents, and breathings by the
original scribe. It contains Gen. 31. 15 — Josh. 12. 12, with many
losses, however, from mutilation, and small fragments of Isaiah
and Malachi. Its evidence is valuable, and where A and B differ
it generally agrees with A.
6. Codex Sarravianus, at Leyden : a very fine manuscript,
probably of the fifth century, though it has sometimes been
attributed to the fourth. It is written with two columns to
the page, and (like the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. above) has
no enlarged initials. It contains the Pentateuch, with portions
of Joshua and Judges, and its special characteristic is that it
contains a Hexaplar text. It is provided with Origen's asterisks
and obeli; but, unfortunately, as in all other MSS. of this
class, these symbols have been very imperfectly reproduced,
so that we cannot depend absolutely . on it to recover the text
as it was before Origen's additions and alterations. Twenty-
two leaves of this MS. are at Paris, where they have some-
times been named the Codex Colbertinus, and one more is at
St. Petersburg.
H. Codex Fetropolitanus, at St. Petersburg, of the sixth cen-
.tury ; contains part of the Book of Numbers.
I. A Bodleian MS. of the Psalms (including, like A, the can-
ticles), of the ninth century. It was wrongly included by Holmes
and Parsons among the cursive MSS., and numbered 13. In its
margin many readings are given from Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion, and from the " fifth " and " seventh *' versions {see
p. 54).
K. A MS. at Leipzig, of the seventh century, containing frag-
ments of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.
n 2^£ y,-eicK&>Tu>ou) cg;T
CM MfJtTU)MrTOJk,ea>" 1
r o V " "V >-"<* V"- ' P *• " * '"
■ K».iefc«oMrrc*.vrrPr
re*.HNHMMvNTrn.p
CKT oYKoc w ofroYir
rxNovtovtri
TO Y "> •! r '"^Ty*. XI l
lttYl'ON».NJ.rJiHTr".
rYMJ-lKVKJ.tMOO»-
fcMteTexYTt>Y<"«N<-i
O N • I (- K (II MoYI^*.no
X p I r ttxMTci croY*!"
. K».i*v;<,iYCHc K*,iei.- t»..YMwiMkYr<"N«--*.ft
COBEX SiUHAVIANtJS — OTU CeNT.
64 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
P. Fragments of Psalms, at Emmanuel College, Cambridge ;
originally reckoned by Holmes and Parsons among the cursives, as
No. 294, but subsequently placed among the uncials (No. IX.).
Q. Codex Marchalianus, in the Vatican Library at Eome.
This is a most valuable copy of the Prophets, written in Egypt in
the sixth century, in a fine bold uncial hand. The editor of this
manuscript. Dr. Ceriani, has shown that the text, as originally
written, is that of Hesychius ; and its value is still further in-
creased by the fact that an almost contemporary hand has added
a great number of various readings in the margin from a copy
of the Hexaplar text. These marginal readings include the
additions made by Origen, generally accompanied by the proper
critical marks (the obelus or asterisk), together with readings from
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Plate VI. gives a repre-
sentation of a page of this manuscript (the whole of which has
been published in a photographic facsimile) containing Ezek. 5.
12-17.* In the margin will be seen several asterisks, which are
repeated in the line itself at the point at which the insertion
begins (e.g., lines 6, 10), and before the beginning of each line
of the passage affected, while the metobelus, indicating the close
of the inserted passage, is represented by a sort of semi-colon
(e.g,, lines 2, 7). In most cases the name of the version from
which the inserted passage was taken is indicated by an initial
in the margin, a standing for Aquila (e.g., line 1), 0 for Theodotion
(lines 6, 11, 15, 17, 22), and a or <tv for Symmachus. Where
Hesychius has introduced words on his own account which were
not in the original Septuagint, the asterisk indicating such words
has been written by the original scribe, and has ample space
allowed it in the writing ; but the great majority of the critical
signs have been added by the reviser, and show that the insertion
had already been made by Origen in his Hexaplar text, which
♦ A papyrus fragment of this same passage, also containing the Hexaplar
text and symbols, has lately been acquired in Egypt by Mr. B. P. Grenfell, and
is now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. It was apparently written about
the fourth century.
mTin"iKii»Yn(()YWTiiiM[i»i.
KVlcWurnVK-tlTtTlTiipTl'llltA'
n lJ'^4Xlt'^4^Ul^J^Kt^lKl>lY^!V.■
„ vcnni'xtifitiiX'Kfmi.Jainiii'tuw •
' ^K^HIfl-HtTl'iniVtilCinrJPJJCAHTrLr.
IJ»l'K»(Tl"irwU!MHAilTl(f(.UlCtA<
jOi^viv:LiN:£,riAU'U(VEMTt'tPivii-it
iUiU»TH.Ni pl•^'lIlLt^Yn^lY-l■«'Y(■
_^^l-^'! 1 1 HI'h t il t ('f HI 111 1-K:I.1 ( 1 1 (Nil
jaWtN-n"! t i+1 1 1 1 i NTM I k'Y'KALl " tV
iK^ijltl+YrAl'MttlYtCVKAlLltlYm.:;
riN'i feKiiAt'Vfl MT) t-Ki !( ti 1
tittiAtrAjjlii-i*.! laA^iiK"
fll [J.1»(,(I m"! 1 1 +MI M Nl OflTY
fVl'NTUJTmHCl'iUli'NMlKPi'
^ N;»pnHK'Jj-l(¥U.[)UlCIJ(,tJnoJi
;i^i'
r
I>^T n I-rti Al'l lAlTllt 9, lA IXUU ITl'V „-|
jE AiJLJ-rY.>ri-LrnrTWH.pi:i,(jrTt-iri»V»-.
sft AU^LT^■l!^l^^*^'l^i-lV■ll^i.k■tlAlu: ■ '''.
,* tYMii'|A' E(1}yxi|t(j(:LL(YNrrM'. ^
'iTiAainfrnfAitjiitJ.iCtM-HI'tjrDiiH
fi'-v'Ln-iiiatMttLJULiM.k:iM«iiT»[
tl i" 1 UKM l| a_('yI I NTI 1 ITTH ('KUl !•■ '•(
).iliiiiTrji>i,uiTritlKYiCA*eiN-i ''
'■yj^itAiiAiitr'— ' ,
ODEX Marchaijani's — 6t
iOriginal size, lliin. ''
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 65
Hesychins often followed. The small writing in the margin con-
sists of notes added in the thirteenth century, of no textual
importance.
R. Verona Psalter, containing both Greek and Latin versions
of the Psalms, written in the sixth century. Several canticles are
added, as in A, and the 151st Psalm has been supplied by a later
hand. The Greek is written in Latin letters.
T. Zurich Psalter, in its original state a splendid manuscript,
written in silver letters with gold initials upon purple vellum.
Several leaves are now missing. The canticles are included.
Written in the seventh century, and often agrees with the readings
of A in doubtful passages.
U. Papyrus Psalter, in the British Museum ; thirty-two leaves
of papyrus, containing Ps. 11. 2 — 19. 6 ; 21. 14 — 35. 6, written in a
sloping hand, probably of the seventh century. Its readings are
often unique, and sometimes agree with the Hebrew against all
other MSS. of the Septuagint.
V. Codex Venetus, in the library of St. Mark's at Venice ; see
N, above.
W. Fragments of Psalms, at Paris, of the ninth century. In-
cluded by Holmes and Parsons among the cursives, as No. 43.
X. A MS. in the Vatican at Rome, containing most of Job,
of the ninth century. Included by Holmes and Parsons among
the cursives, as No. 258.
Y. Codex Taurinensis, at Turin, of the ninth century, contain-
ing the Minor Prophets.
Z*, Z^, Z°, Z^, Z«, are small fragments of various books, of slight
importance.
r {Gamma^ the third letter of the Greek alphabet, those of the
Latin alphabet being now exhausted). Codex Cryptoferratensis,
at Grotta Ferrata, in Italy ; o, palimpsest^ containing the Prophets,
written in the eighth or ninth century. Much of the original
writing has been hopelessly obliterated. It is remarkable that
most of the Greek manuscripts in the monastery of Grotta Ferrata
are palimpsests, showing how scarce vellum was there, and how.
8 2764. E
Cfii or/ /I lUllLK AND TIIK ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
ilio iiU^rary m;tivity of Die rnoiiks caused them to nse the same
»li(M)t/M t/wi(;() ovitr, and iioinotiiiies oven thrice.
A {/Jf'Iffff th<5 fourth letter of the Greek alphabet). Fragments
of Hill and the Draj^on, iwjcording to the version of Theodotion,
wrlMon in thn llftli century, if not earlier; in the Bodleian Library
at Oxford.
U (/V, llu< Hixtcenth letter of the Greek alphabet). Fragments
{}{ the Ith MaccabeeH, of the ninth century, at St. Petersburg.
Ollirr fraKUiontH, and jKjrIiajw even larger MSS., will no doubt
iH)n)o U) li^lit finnu time to time ; indeed, the British Museum has
mvntly a<M|uiiXHl Home loaves of a Psalter, written in a very rough
hand of M^ryplian tyjKs and j)orha{>s of the seventh or eighth cen-
tury, whioh law not yot apiKninnl in any published list. But the
(Hitalo^uo \\v\v fj:ivou sliows the material now available to the
»(udont t>r tho iSi'ptua^int in the sha^K' of uncial maimseripts. The
\\\wl imiH>rttuit of thorn an\ no doubt, B, A, and (where it is
Hvailablo) Jv\ and, in thoir own sjKvial dojiartments, 6 and Q.
Tbo oursivo umiut8iTi|Ui^ of the So^^tuairint ar^ far too numerous
to lx> do85vTiK\l in dot^uU In the irn>at eiiition of Holmes and
)\irs^u)8 no lo^ than 808* such manuscripts are
]tS& doi^>nUH)« and thoir N'urious ivadiug^ quoted. It
mjiy Iv ^>f ^nuo intensity however, as showing the
<inuHuU of evidowiv jix^ikWo for i^oh i^an of the Oki Tesumeiit
to iwdkt^te xxhioh tUAUusfK^ij^ts i\\ut;iuu, in full or in ]isin, epB«h of
tW chief 5::rvMi\>iSi of Kx^fc^ IV folWing t^ MSS. contain the
IV«t?iiUH^^\ %^ ivftti of it : N\^ U-:^\ :*\:?S-^:?, ;l^7, ;f^ 44-47,
.v^ .N5^ ^u ^u. ^^ :i-::\ siv<\ u\N-uv^ iis. i^i-u^e, ie,%-i36.
VMftxMixv A^^tt^;^^ tl>e V,i5«o:^i>Al K\^Vs : 1\ lt\ IS. li\ :*?, ;^\M^
^;^->^;v ts\ <^^x ^s^ r^^ :i\ :4-::. si\ Sis s\ i^e, iij^ ^n iv«-ii«,
n.<-un. u\^ u\\ ^^1, 1^^ 144. ix\ iVj\ i^jiK I"?:, f?«-:*4$.
The ^>sfc^ws 4«\' ^^t^^'X-va; ;r, ^v u><5^ tV»*;; :t< aoh^ ;-C" 1^51,
;^:. ,^\ 4,^ ,\\ h> -I :. rx :^^ s^k s;. 2'5"^ :v.i\ :v'*< :^iu m-ii\,
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 67
140-146, 150-152, 154, 156, 162-lp7, 199-206, 208, 210-219,
222, 228, 225-227, 262-294. The Prophets appear, more or less
perfectly, in 62 manuscripts, viz. : 22-24, 26, 33-36, 40-42, 45,
48, 49, 51, 61, 62, 68, 70, 86-88, 90, 91, 93, 95-97 104-106, 109,
114, 130, 132, 144, 147-149, 153, 185, 198, 228-233, 238-240,
301-311. Finally there are 39 manuscripts containing the books
of the Hagiographa ; 55, 68, 70, 103, 106, 109, 110, 137-139, 147,
149, 155, 157, 159-161, 248-261, 295-300, 307», 308». It is not
to be supposed that this exhausts the entire stock of cursives now
known to exist ; but it is probably sufficient for all practical pur-
poses. The value of the cursives only appears when they can be
divided into groups, showing common descent from one or other of
the ancient editions of the Septuagint which have been described
above. How far this is at present feasible will be shown presently.
Such are the manuscripts on which scholars must depend for
recovering the genuine text of the Greek Old Testament. It will
be useful to describe briefly what has been done
Printed editions. . ^i . -,. ^. , . ^i i • i n ^^
m this direction, as showing the kind and the
amount of labour which scholars have bestowed on the task of
making the text of the Bible as accurate as possible in every .
point. The first printed edition of the Septuagint was made by
the Spaniard, Cardinal Xipienfta^ who combined the Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin versions of the Bible in the four volumes known as the
Comnlutensian Polyglott (1514-15171. His Greek text was mainly '
based on two late MSS. in the Vatican, now known as 108 and 248.
In 1518 the great printer Aldus issued an edition based on MSS.
then at Venice. But the most important edition in early times i
is the Koman, published under the patronage of Pope Sixtus in
1587. This edition, which rests mainly on the great Codex ,
Vaticanus (B), though with many errors and divergencies,* has .
remained since then the standard text of the Septuagint. In
1707-1728 a very good edition of the Codex Alexandrinus (A),
supplemented from other MSS. where A is deficient, was published
* It has been estimated that the Eoman text ^i£fers from that of B in oyer
4000 places.
E 2
€t8 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
by the Anglo-Prussian scholar Grabe. But the greatest work on the
Septuagint which has yet appeared is that which E. Holmes and
J. Parsons produced at Oxford in 1798-1827. In this colossal work
the Eoman text of 1587 is reprinted without variation, but in the
critical notes are given the various readings of no less than 825
manuscripts. Unfortunately many of these MSS. were very iiji-
perfectly examined by the persons employed for the task by the
editors, so that much of the work will have to be done over again ;
but the edition of Holmes and Parsons remains the only one which
gives a general view of the manuscript evidence, and has been the
basis of all study of the Septuagint text since their day. Of later
editors it is only necessary to mention Tischendorf, who in 1850
issued a revision of the Eoman text, with variants from K ? A, and
C, (seventh edition in 1887, by Dr. Nestle) ; Field, who edited
the remains of the Heiapla in 1875 ; Lagarde, who in 1883 pub-
lished an attempt to recferver the edition of Lucian, besides many
other valuable contribulions to the criticism of the Septuagint ;
' and Dr. Swete, of Cambridge, who has just completed (1887-1894)
an edition giving the text of the Septuagint according to the best
MS. extant in each part (B, wherever it is available, elsewhere J<
or A), with all the variants in three or four of the next best
manuscripts. This is likely to remain the standard edition of the
Septuagint for the use of scholars, until it is superseded by the
/4€<v*J larger Cambridge edition now in preparation, which will contain
\^fiuL - the same text with a very much larger apparatus of various read-
ings, gathered from a selected number of MSS. representing all
the different types of text.
The work, indeed, which remains to be done in connection with
the text of the Septuagint is still very considerable. One would
wish, first of all, to disengi\ge the editions of
the origioal Eusebius, Lucian, and Hesvehius, and therebv to
t6Zt * **
see what was the state of the Septuagint t€xt
at the end of the third century. Then we want to go further
back, and discover, if possible, what the original text was like
when it left the hands of the translators themselves. And when
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 69
that is done we still have to ask the question which is the ultimate
cause of all our interest in the Septuagint — What does this original
text tell us as to the character of the Hebrew text from which it
was taken ?
For the first part of this inquiry scholars have already collected
considerable materials. The manuscripts of the Septuagint, when
Eeco stmcti closely examined, are found to fall into certain
of tlie three groups which point to several different centres of
origin ; and, chiefly by the evidence afforded by
quotations in the writings of the early Fathers whose places of
residence we know, it is possible to localise these centres, and
thereby to say that one group represents the Antiochian edition of
iiucian, and another the Alexandrian edition of Hesychius.
The most recognisable of the three editions is that of Eusebius
and Pamphilus, which in fact reproduced the text fixed by Origen.
For this the leading authorities are the Syriac
translation by Bishop Paulus of Telia, which con-
tains the Prophets and Hagiographa, with Origen's apparatus
of asterisks and obeli ; the Codex Sarravianus (6), containing the
Pentateuch, with parts of Joshua and Judges ; the Codex Cois-
linianus (M), containing the same books, together with those of
Samuel and Kings ; the cursive MSS. known as 86 and 88,
containing the Prophets ; and the copious marginal notes in
the Codex Marchalianus (Q), which give Hexaplar readings with
an indication of the author (Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion)
from whom they were taken. Lagarde also refers to a manuscript
in private hands, which certainly contains this edition, but it has
not yet been identified or published.
Of the other two editions, the most recognisable is that of
Lucian. Certain direct references to it in early writers, and the
statement that it was the standard text in Antioch
2. Ladam ^
and Constantinople, have enabled modem editors
to Tec(^nize it in certain extant manuscripts, and in the copious
Biblical quotations of Chryspstom and Theodoret. The first sug-
gestion to this effect seems to have been made by Dr. Ceriani, of
70 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
Milan, and it was simultaneously worked out by Field, in the
Prolegomena to hhJIexapla, and by Lagarde, who produced a text
of half the Old Testament (Genesis-Esther) according to this
edition, the completion of it being prevented by his lamented
death. No uncial MS. contains a Lucianic text, with the exception
of the Codex Venetus (V, or N). In the books Genesis-Judges it
appears in the cursives 19, 108, 118 ; in the historical books, 19,
82, 93, 108, 118 ; in the Prophets, 22, 36, 48, 51, 93, 144, 231, 308.
The text of the Hagiographa has not yet been investigated. A
Lucianic text also appears in the Gothic and old Slavonic versions,
and in the first printed edition of the Septuagint — the Complu-
tensian, which was mainly taken from the MS. known as 108.
The edition of Hesychius remains, and the identification of this
is still involved in some uncertainty. As the edition which circu-
lated in Egypt, it seems likely that it would be
found in MSS. vtritten in that country, in the
Coptic versions, which were made from the Septuagint for the use
of the native Egyptians, and in the writings of the Alexandrian
Fathers, such as Cyril. Good authorities differ, however, as to the
Greek manuscripts in which this edition is to be looked for.
Ceriani assigns to it the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the original text
of the Codex Marchalianus (Q), the Dublin fragments of Isaiah (0),
and the cursives 26, 106, 198, 306 (all of the Prophets). The
able German professor, Cornill, however, also dealing with MSS.
containing the Prophets, finds the Hesychian version in 49, 68, 87,
90, 91, 228, 238, with the Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Old Latin
versions. These are akin to the above-mentioned group repre-
sented by A, 26, etc., but have (in his opinion) more of the
appearance of an authorised edition, in which marked peculiarities
of text, such as there are in A, are not to be expected. The
question cannot be solved without further investigation, to which
it may be hoped that the forthcoming large Cambridge edition
will considerably contribute.
It will be observed that only a comparatively small number of
manuscripts can be definitely assigned tp one or other of the
THE 8EPTUAGINT. 71
ancient editions. The rest are, for the most part, later copies con-
taining mixed and corrupt texts, which will be of
XOXbS Ox XAO
great uncialsu little use towards the recovery of the original form
of the Septuagint. There remain, however, some
of the early uncial manuscripts, including the oldest of all, the
great Codex Vaticanus (B). Comill at one time suggested that B
was based on the edition of Eusebius, with the omission of all the
passages therein marked by asterisks as insertions from the Hebrew ;
but this view has been abandoned, and it is more probable (as stated
by Dr. Hort) that it is akin to the manuscripts which Origen used
as the foundation of his Hexapla. Origen would, no doubt, have
taken as his basis of operations the best copies of the Septuagint
then available ; and if B is found to contain a text like that used
by Origen, it is a strong testimony in its favour. Hence it is
commonly held to be, on the whole, the best and most neutral of
all the manuscripts of the Septuagint ; and it is a happy accident
that it has formed the foundation of the commonly received text,
that namely of the Roman edition of 1587. Between B and A the
differences of reading are sometimes very strongly marked, and the
divergencies have not yet by any means been explained. All con-
clusions are at present tentative and provisional, and the best
scholars are the least positive as to the certainty of their results.
Of the other great manuscripts, x seems to contain a text inter-
mediate between A and B, though in the Book of Tobit it has a
form of the text completely different from both. Ceriani considers
that it shows some traces of Hesychian influence. He makes the
same claim for C : but of this the fragments are so scanty that it
is difficult to arrive at any positive conclusion.
But although many points of detail still remain obscure, we
yet know quite enough about the Septuagint to be able to
- . - state broadly the relation in which it stands to
Companson of ''
Septaasrint with the Massoretic Hebrew text. And here it is
that the great interest and importance of the
Septuagint becomes evident. Rightly or wrongly, it is certain that
the Septuagint differs from the Massoretic text to a very marked
72 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
extent. Words and phrases constantly differ ; details which'
depend upon figures and numbers, such as the ages of the patri-
archs in the early chapters of Genesis, show great discrepancies ;
whole verses, and even longer passages, appear in the one text and
not in the other ; the arrangement of the contents of several books'
varies very largely. The discrepancies are least in the Pentateuch,
the words of which were no doubt held most sacred by all Jews,
and so would be less likely to suffer change either in the Hebrew
or in the Greek. But in the Books of Samuel and Kings, the
Septuagint departs frequently from the Massoretic text ; the
r student of the Variorum Bible may be referred for examples to
I 1 Sam. 4. 1 ; 6. 6 ; 10. 1 ; 13. 1, 15 ; U. 24, 41 ; 16. 13 ; 2 Sam.
\ 4. 6-7 ; 11. 23 ; 17. 3 ; 20. 18, 19 ; 1 Kings 2. 29 ; 8. 1 ; 12. 2, 3,
• 4-24. In the narrative of David and Goliath the variations are
( especially striking; for the best MSS. of the Septuagint omit
' 1 .Sam. 17. 12-31, 41, 50, 55-58, together with 18. 1-5, 9-11,
17-19, and the rest of the references to Merab. In the Book of
Job there is good reason to believe that the original text of the
Septuagint omitted nearly one-sixth of the whole {see p. 76). In
Jeremiah the order of the prophecies differs greatly, chapters 46-51
being inserted (in a different order) after chapter 26. 14, while the
following passages are altogether omitted : 10. 6-8, 10 ; 17. 1-4 ;
27. 1, 7, 13, and a great part of 17^-22 ; 29. 16-20 ; 33. 14-26 ;
39. 4-13. Even if we reduce th,e number of minor variations as
much as possible (and very many of them may be due to mistakes
on the part of the Septuagint translators, to different methods of
supplying the vowels in the H^ebrew text, to different divisions
of the words of the Hebrew, or to a freedom of translation which
amounts to paraphrase), yet these larger discrepancies, the list of
which the reader of the Variorum Bible may easily increase for him-
self, are sufficient to show that the ^ebrew text which lay before
the authors of the Septuagint differed very considerably from
that which the Massoretes have handed down to us. What the
explanation of this difference may be, or which of the two texts
is generally to be preferred, are questions tp wjiiph it would be rash,
THE EASTERN' VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMJ^NT 7^
in the present state of our knowledge, to pretend to give a de-
cided answer. Some statement of the ease is, however, necessary
for' those who wish to understand what the evidence for our
present Old Testament text really is ; but it will be better to
postpone the discussion of it until we have completed the list of
the vei'sions from which some light upon the question may be
expected. Some of them help us to reconstruct the text of the
Septuagint ; others tell us of the condition of the Hebrew text
at a later date than those at which the Samaritan and the Greek
versions were made ; all in some degree help forward our main
purpose, — the history of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
§ 3. — Other Eastern Versions*
The Syriac Version. — The two versions of which we have
hitherto spoken, the Samaritan and the Greek, were made before
the institution of Christianity. It is otherwise with all the
remaining versions of the Old Testament. Outside the Jewish
and Samaritan communities there was no desire to know the
Hebrew Scriptures until Christianity came, preaching the fulfil-
ment of those Scriptures and the extension of their promises to
all nations. As the Christian missionaries spread abroad from
Judaea into the surrounding countries, fulfilling their Master's
last command to preach the Gospel to every people, they necessarily
referred much to the history of the nation among which He
wrought His ministry, and to the prophets who had prepared
His way before Him. Hence there arose a demand for transla-
tions of the Hebrew Scriptures into the languages of every country
in which Christianity was preached ; and the versions of which
we have now to speak were all the offspring of that demand.
The first of these in geographical nearness to Judaea was the
Syriac. Syriac is the language of Syria and Mesopotamia, which
lie north and north-east of Palestine, and, with some slight difl'er-
ences of dialect, it was the actual language commonly spoken in
Palestine (and there known as Aramaic) at the time of our Lord's
life on earth. In the case of the New Testament, as we shall see,
74 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPTS.
several translations into Syriac were made ; but of the Old Testa-
ment there was (apart from the version of Origen's Hexaplar text,
mentioned above, p. 65, and some other late translations from
the Septuagint, of which only fragments remain) only one, and
that the one which, in both Old and New Testament, is and
always has been the standard version of all the Syriao Churches.
It is known as the Peshitto, or " Simple" version, but the exact
explanation of the name is unknown. It wag probably made in
the second or third century after Christ ; certainly not later, since
in the fourth century we find it quoted and referred to as an
authority of long standing. A considerable number of copies
of it are known, most of them forming part of a splendid
collection of Syriac manuscripts which were secured for the
British Museum in 1842 from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara,
situated in the Nitrian desert in Egypt. Among these is the
manuscript of which a part is reproduced in Plate VII., which has
the distinction of being the oldest copy of the Bible in any
language of which the exact date is known. It was written in the
year 464, and contains the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy ; the part here reproduced being Exod. 13. 8-17.
We thus have direct evidence of the text of this version in the
fifth century, and in the century before that we find copious
quotations from it in the writings of two Syrian Fathers, Ephrem
and Aphraates.
The Peshitto version omits the books of the Apocrypha, and
hence was evidently taken from Hebrew MSS. after the Canon of
the Hebrew Scriptures had been finally fixed. It also was origi-
nally without the Chronicles, which were added to it (from a
Jewish Targum) at a later time. The cause of the omission is not
known, and it may have been due simply to a belief that the
Jewish history was sufficiently represented by the Books of Kings.
The whole translation is from the Hebrew, but the translators have
been rather free in their renderings, and seem also to have been
acquainted with the Septuagint. The books of the Apocrypha
(except 1 Esdras and perhaps Tobit) were added at an early date.
risen r<ieArOi^e^
i
THE EASTERN VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 75
and they now appear in all the earlier Syriac MSS. which make
any pretence to contain a complete Old Testament. The Syriac
version of these books is often useful in correcting errors which
have found their way into the Greek text.* At a later date the
whole version was revised by comparison with the Septuagint ;
and hence it is not very trustworthy as evidence for the Hebrew
text, and its agreements with the Septuagint cannot be taken
with any certainty as independent confirmations of its reading.
The Coptic Versions (see Plates XVI. & XVII.).— Coptic is the
language which was used by the natives of Egypt at the time when
the Bible was first translated for their use. It is, indeed, a modified
form of the language which had been spoken in the country from
time immemorial ; but about the end of the first century after Christ
it began, owing to the influence of the great number of Greeks
settled in Egypt, to be written in Greek characters, with six ad-
ditional letters, and with a considerable admixture of Greek words.
It is to this form of the language that the name of Coptic was
given, and it continues to the present day to be used in the services
of the Christian Church in Egypt. There were, however, differ-
ences in the dialects spoken in different parts of the country, and
consequently more than one translation of the Scriptures was
required. The number of these dialects is still a matter of un-
certainty, for the papyri discovered in Egypt of late yeai*s have?
been, and still are, adding considerably to our knowledge of them ;
but it appears that four or five different versions of the New
Testament have been identified, and three of the Old. Only one
of these, however, has survived complete, though there are very
considerable fragments of another.
The Coptic versions of the Bible are more important for thift
New Testament than for the Old, and it will consequently be
convenient to treat of them at greater length in the chapter dealing
with the versions of the New Testament. In the Old Testament
* Especially in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, in which the Syriac version must
have been made from the Hebrew original, now lost ; see the Variorum
Apocrypha and the editor's preface.
76 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
they were made from the Septuagint, and consequently their
evidence is mainly valuable for the purpose of restoring the Greek
text, and only indirectly for the Hebrew text which lies behind the
Greek. For the student of the Septuagint, however, they, should
be of considerable service. As it is probable that they were taken
from the edition of the Septuagint current in Egypt, which was
that of Hesychius, they should give valuable assistance in identi-
fying and recovering the text of that edition. The two most
important of the Coptic versions are {a) the Memphitic or Bohairic
Version^ current in Lower or Northern Egypt, and (&) the
Thebaic or Sahidic Version, current in Upper or Southern Egypt.
Of these the Bohairic alone is complete, having been ultimately
adopted as the standard Bible for all Egypt; but the Sahidic
exists in very considerable fragments. One portion of the Sahidic
version is of especial interest ; for within the last few years copies
of the Book of Job in this version have been discovered con-
taining a text which bears every mark of being its original form.
It is shorter than the received text by about one-sixth, omitting
in all about 376 verses, but the passages which disappear are in
many cases inconsistent with the general argument of the book^
and appear to have been inserted by Jewish scholars who did not
Understand, or did not approve of, the plan of the poem as it was
originally written. Indeed the whole Sahidic Old Testament
seems to have been at firet free from Hexaplar additions, but to
have been subsequently revised from MSS. containing these addi-
tions, presumably copies of the Hesychian text which was current
in Egypt. Both versions appear to have been made in the third
century, if not earlier, the Bohairic being probably the first in
order of time. Of the third version, (c) the Middle Egyptian, only
a few fragments have as yet been discovered.
The EtMopic Version. — ^With the versions of Egypt may natu-
rally go the version of Ethiopia ; but it will require only a brief
notice. The Ethiopian manuscripts (most of which were acquired
by the British Museum at the time of the Abyssinian war in 1867)
are of very late date, but the original translation was probably
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77
made in the fourth century after Christ. This version was, no
doubt, made from the Septuagint ; but it has been questioned
whether the extant MSS. really represent this translation, or a
much later one, made in the fourteenth century from the Arabic
or Coptic. The fact is that at present little can be said to be
known about the version at all. Both Old and New Testament
are preserved to us entire, though in very late manuscripts, but
they have never been properly edited.
The remaining Oriental versions may be dismissed in a few
words. A few fragments remain of the Gk)thic version, made
for the Goths in the fourth century by their bishop, Ulfilas,
while they were still settled in Moesia, the modem Servia and
Bulgaria. Its chief interest lies in the fact that it was taken from
a copy of the Lucianic edition of the Septuagint.
The Armenian, Arabic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions were
all made from the Septuagint, but they appear to be of little
critical value.
§ 4. — The Latin Versions*
{a) The Old Latin Version. — ^When Christianity reached Rome,
the Church which was founded there was at first more Greek
than Latin. St. Paul wrote to it in Greek, the names of most
of its members, so far as we know them, are Greek, and its
earliest bishops were Greek : one of them, Clement, wrote an
epistle to the Corinthians in Greek which is found along with
the books of the New Testament in one of the earliest Greek
Bibles, the Codex Alexandrinus. There was therefore at first no
necessity for a Latin version of the Scriptures ; and the necessity,
when it arose, was felt less in Rome itself than in the Roman
province of Africa. It is in this province, consisting of the
habitable part of northern Africa, lying along the southern coast of
the Mediterranean, that a Latin Bible first makes its appearance.
The importance of the Old Latin version, as it is called, to
distinguish it from the later version of St. Jerome, is much\
greater in the New Testament than in the Old. In the former,
78 OUn BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
it is the earliest translation of the original Greek which we possess,
and is an important evidence for the state of the text in the
second century. In the latter it is only a version of a version,
being made from the Septuagint, not from the original Hebrew.
Historically, moreover, it is of less importance ; for it was almost
entirely superseded by the version of Jerome, and it exists to-day
only in fragments. Xo entire manuscript survives of the Old
Testament in this version ; a few books only, and those chiefly
of the Apocrypha, exist complete ; for the rest we are indebted
for most of our knowledge of this version to the quotations in
the early Latin Fathers.
The Old Latin version of the New Testament was extant in
Africa in the second century after Christ, and it is probable that
the translation of the Old Testament was made at the same time,
since it is almost certain that a complete Latin Bible was known
to Tertullian (about a.d. 200). Whether the first translation
was actually made in Africa, it is impossible to say, for want of
positive evidence ; but this view is commonly held and is at least
probable. What is certain is that the version exists in two
different forms, probably representing two independent transla-
tions, known, from the regions in which they circulated, as the
African and the European ; and that a revised form of the latter
was current in Italy towards the end of the fourth century, and
was known as the Italic. The original translation was rough and
somewhat free ; in the Italic edition the roughnesses are toned
down and the translation revised with reference to the Greek.
As the translation was originally made before the time of the
various editions of Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, its evidence,
wherever we possess it, is useful as a means to the recovery
of the earlier form of the Septuagint ; and it is observable that
its text is akin to that which appears in the Codex Alexandrinus,
which seems to indicate an Egyptian origin. Unfortunately it
is available only to a limited extent. The apocryphal books of
Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Bamch, and Maccabees, together
with the additions to Daniel and Esther, were not translated or
THE LATIN VEBSIONS OF THE OLD TE8TAMENT. 79
revised by Jerome, and consequently the Old Latin versions of
these books were incorporated in the later Latin Bible and remain
there to this day.* The Psalter survives in a very slightly altered
form ; and Job and Esther are preserved in some ancient manu-
scripts. With these exceptions, the books of the Old Testament
are known to us only in the scanty fragments of three manuscripts
and the quotations of the Fathers ; and though the latter are
copious, they are an uncertain and insufficient basis for general
criticism.
(&) The Vulgate. — It is very different when we come to the
great work of St. Jerome, which, in the main, continues to be
the Bible of the Roman Church to this day. Its origin is known
to us from the letters and prefaces of its author ; its evidence
is preserved to us in hundreds and even thousands of manuscripts
of all ages from the fourth century to the fifteenth. Its historical
importance is enormous, especially for the Ohurc&es of Western
Europe ; for, as we shall see in the progress of our story, it was
the Bible of these Churches, including our own Church of England,
until the time of the Reformation. We shall have to trace its
history in the later chapters of this book ; for the present we are
concerned with the story of its birth.
By the end of the fourth century the imperfections of the
Old Latin version had become evident to the leaders of the
Roman Church. Not only was the translation taken from the
Greek of the Septuagint, instead of the original Hebrew, but the
current copies of it were grossly disfigured by corruptions. The
inevitable mistakes of copyists, the omissions and interpolations
of accident or design, the freedom with which early translators
handled the text of their original, the alterations of revisers, and
the different origin of the African and European forms of the
versicMi, all contributed to produce a state of confusion and
* The Old Latin version of Ecclesiastic us enables us to correct a disarrange-
ment which has taken place in the text of the Septuagint. In the Greek version,
chap^ 30. 25 — 33. 13a is placed after chap. 36. 16a, which is plainly wrong.
The Latin version has preserved the true order, which has been followed in our
* Authorised Version.
^v
80 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
distortion intolerable to an educated Churchman. Hence about
the year 382 Pope Damasus appealed to the most capable Biblical
scholar then living, Eusebius Hieronymus, whom we know better
under the abbreviated form of his name, Jerome,
to undertake a revision of the Latin Bible.
Jerome was bom in 346, a native of Stridon in Pannonia,
not far from the modern Trieste. Throughout his life he was
devoted to Biblical studies. In 374 he set himself to learn
Hebrew, then a very rare accomplishment in the West, taking
as his teacher a converted Jew. His first Biblical undertaking,
however, was not connected with his Hebrew studies. The
existing Latin Bible was a translation from tBe Greek throughout,
in the Old Testament as well as in the New, and all that Pope
Damasus now invited Jerome to do was to revise this translation
with reference to the Greek. He began with the
^^thrSosp^er^ ®^^P®^^> ^^ which we shall have to speak later ;
but about the same time he also made his first
revision of the Psalter. He produced eventually no less than
three versions of the Psalms, all of which are still extant. The
first was this very slight revision of the Old Latin version, with
reference to the Septuagint, and is known as the Roman Psalter ;
it was officially adopted by Pope Damasus, and still remains in
use in the cathedral of St. Peter at Rome. The second, made
between 387 and 390, was a more thorough
?sa*i£rs? revision, still with reference- to the Septuagint ;
but Jerome attempted to bring it into closer
conformity with the Hebrew by using Origen's Hexaplar text and
reproducing his asterisks and obeli ; this version was first adopted
in Gaul, whence it is known as the Gallican Psalter, and it has
held its place as the Psalter in general use in the Roman Church
and in the Roman Bible from that day to this, in spite of the
superior accuracy of the third version which Jerome subsequently
published. This is known as the Hehreiv Psalter, being an
entirely fresh translation from the original Hebrew. It is found
in a fair number of manuscripts of the Vulgate, often in parallel
THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 81
columns with the Gallican version, but it never attained to general
usage or popularity.
About the time when Jerome produced his Gallican Psalter, he
also revised some of the other books of the Old Testament, such as
Job (which alone now survives in this form), with
Testament. reference to the Hexaplar text ; but it would
appear that this undertaking was not carried to
completion. It is probable that Jerome, as his knowledge of
Hebrew increased, grew dissatisfied with the task of merely revis-
ing the Old Latin translation with reference to a text which itself
was only a translation. He had completed the revision of the New
Testament on these lines ; but with the Old Testament he resolved
to take in hand an altogether new translation from the Hebrew.
He appears to have felt no doubt as to the superiority of the
Hebrew text over the Greek, and in all cases of divergence
regarded the Hebrew as alone correct. This great work occupied
him from about the year 390 to 404 ; and separate books or
groups of books were published as they were completed. The first
to appear were the Books of Samuel and Kings, next the Prophets,
and lastly the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Esther.
In the prefatory letters prefixed to these books, Jerome tells us
much of his work and its reception. In spite of much individual
support which he received, the general attitude
hirvers?on. towards it was one of great hostility. The
sweeping nature of the changes introduced, the
marked difference in the text translated, alienated those who had
been brought up to know and to love the old version, and who
could not understand the critical reasons for the alteration.
Jerome felt this opposition keenly, and raged against what he
regiarded as its unreasonableness ; and his sensitiveness, not to say
irritability, finds vigorous expression in his prefaces. We who
have seen the introduction of a Eevised Bible in our own country,
intended to supersede the version to which England has been
devotedly attached for centuries, can understand the difficulties
which surrounded the work of Jerome. Gradually, as we shall see
S2761. P
82 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
in a later chapter, the superior accuracy and scholarship of his
version gave it the victory, though not in a perfect or complete
form. The Gallican Psalter continued to hold its own, and was
never replaced by the version from the Hebrew. The apocryphal
books he wished to reject entirely, because they found no place in
the current Hebrew Bible. He did indeed consent reluctantly to
make a very hurried translation of the Books of Judith and Tobit ;
but the remaining books he left untouched. In spite of this, they
continued to find a place in the Latin Bible ; and the Vulgate, as
finally adopted by the Eoman Church, contains these books in the
form in which they had stood, before the days of Jerome, in the
Old Latin version. In the rest of the Old Testament, Jerome's
version ultimately superseded the Old Latin, and in the New
Testament his revision of the Old Latin held its ground. To this
composite Bible, consisting partly of unrevised translations from
the Greek, partly of revised translations from the same, and partly
of translations from the Hebrew, was given in later days, when it
had been generally accepted in Western Europe, the name of the
"Vulgate," or commonly received translation ; and of this, the Bible
of our own country until the Reformation, and of the Roman
Church until to-day, we shall have much to say hereafter as we
trace its history through the centuries. We shall also reserve for
later chapters an account of the chief manuscripts in which it is
now preserved. In the present chapter we have to do with it only
as it affords evidence which may help us to recover the original
Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
In this respect its importance is not to be compared with that of
the Septuagint. The Hebrew text accessible to Jerome was practi-
cally identical with that which is accessible to
ourselves ; for although the Massoretes themselves
are later in date than Jerome by several centuries, yet, as we have
seen, the text which they stereotyped had come down practically
unchanged since the beginning of the second century after Christ.
Hence the version of Jerome is of little help to us in our attempt
to recover the Hebrew text as it existed in the centuries before the
CONDITION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT,
83
Christian era ; on the other hand, if the Massoretic text is in itself
superior to the Greek version as a whole, then the Yulgate is a
more satisfactory national Bible than the Septuagint. The trans-
lation itself is of unequal merit ; some parts are free to the verge
of paraphrase, others are so literal as to be nearly unintelligible ;
but on the whole the work is one of very great merit, and justifies
the commanding position which Jerome holds among the Fathers
of the Koman Church. Jerome was, indeed, for the West what
Origen was for the East, — the greatest Biblical scholar which the
Church produced before the revival of learning at the end of the
Middle Ages.
§ 5. — Condition of the Old Testament Text.
The Vulgate is the last of the versions of the Old Testament
which need be mentioned here ; and now we come back to the
question with which we ended the preceding chapter. What light,
after all, do these versions throw on the text of the Old Testament ?
Do they help us to get behind the Massoretic text, and see what
the words of the Scriptures were when they were first written
down ? And, if so, does this earlier evidence confirm the accuracy
of the Massoretic text, or does it throw doubt upon it ? With the
answer to this question we can close our examination of the Old
Testament text.
A diagram may serve to summarise, in broad outline, the infor-
mation which has been given above.
a.c
A
•
•
40O
3CO
Si
•
•
•
an
Wt
too
•
J.D.
_. -»«-
JOO
ttmwtkJiwt
OUJjUb%
1
2O0
S^im
4O0
EtM
efMe
ibiftut
tie.
.filM
III \itam
.Cm
Jkl>n
•w .
brguMHt
F 2
84 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
In the first place it will be clear that some of the versions we
have described must be excluded on the ground that they are not
•M- * **v translations of the Hebrew at all. Thus the
Host of the ver-
sions too late to Coptic, Ethiopia, Gothic, Armenian, Arabic,
Q-eorgianv Slavonic, and Old Latin versions were
made from the Greek of the Septuagint ; and they can only
indirectly help us to recover the original Hebrew. Their value is
that they help ub to restore the original text of the Septuagint ;
and from the Septuagint we may get on to the Hebrew. In the
next place, the Peshitto Syriao and the Latin Vulgate, though
translated from the Hebrew, were translated at a time when the
Hebrew text was practically fixed in the form in which we now
have it. The Peshitto was made in the second or third century,
the Vulgate at the end of the fourth ; but we have already seen
that we can trace back the Massoretic text to about the beginning
of the second century. In some cases, when the Hebrew has been
corrupted at a comparatively late date, these versions may show us
the mistake ; but their main value arises from, the fact that, at the
time when they were made, the Hebrew vowel-points were not
yet written down, but were supplied in reading the Scriptures
according to the tradition current among the Jews. Hence the
Peshitto and the Vulgate show us in what way the absent vowels
were supplied at a date very much earlier than any of our existing
manuscripts. The same is the case with the Greek versions of
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. They were made from the
Hebrew, but from a Hebrew text too late to be of much service to
us in our present inquiry.
There remain the Samaritan and the Septuagint versions. Of
these the Samaritan is the oldest ; and as it is not really a trans-
E 'd fth l9.tion into a different language, but a direct
Samaritan Pen- descendant of the original Scriptures in the same
language and written in the same characters, its
evidence might be expected to be of exceptional value. Unfortu-
nately, however, it relates only to the Pentateuch ; and we have
seen (p. 72) that it is exactly here that help is least required, and
CONDITION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT. 85
that the variations of the Samaritan text, even where they appear
to be right, are not of very great or striking importance. With
the Septuagint it is quite otherwise* It contains all the books of
the Old Testament, including those which the Jews finally refused
to accept ad inspired ; and its variations are, in many of the books,
both numerous and important. The real question to be debated,
then, is this : Does the Septuagint or the Massoretic text represent
most accurately the words and form of the Old Testament Scrip-
tures as they were originally written ?
So far as the weight of authority goes, the preponderance is
decidedly in favour of the Hebrew. Origen and Jerome, the two
greatest Biblical scholars of antiquity, deliber-
^MiSsof^cr ^^^^^ abandoned the original Septuagint and its
descendants, the translations made from it, in
order to produce versions which should correspond as nearly as
possible with the Hebrew, So, too, in the modem world, all the
translators of the Bible whose scholarship was equal to it went to
the Hebrew for their text of the Old Testament, while those who
could uot read Hebrew fell back upon the Vulgate, which was
itself translated from the Hebrew. Our own Authorised and
Revised Bibles, as well as nearly all the translations which
preceded them, rest almost entirely upon the Massoretic text, and
only very rarely follow the versions in preference to it. And this
is very natural ; for the Old Testament books were written in
Hebrew, and it seems reasonable to suppose that they would be
best represented in the Hebrew manuscripts. In the case- of no
other book in the world should we look to a translation rather
than to copies in the original language for the best representation
of the contents of the work. Since the last century, however,
there have been scholars who have maintained that the Septuagint
comes nearer to the original Hebrew than do the Hebrew manu-
scripts of the Massoretic family ; and this view has recently been
urged with much vigour and plausibility in an English journal.*
* By Sir Henry Howorth, M.P., F.E.S., in the Academy , 1893-4.
86 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANmCRIPTS,
It would be absurd to attempt to decide the point authoritatively
in such a work as this ; but the conditions of the problem can be
stated, and the apparent course of the controversy indicated in
brief.
In the first place it is only natural that the Hebrew text should
have suffered considerable corruption. If we take the year 100
The Hebrew text ^^^^ Christ as representing the date to which we
sore to be cor- can trace back the existence of the Massoretic
^^^ * text, there is still a gap of many centuries before
we reach the dates at which most of the books were compos^.
Nearly a thousand years separate us from the earliest of the
Prophets, and even if we accept the latest date which modem
criticism assigns to the composition of the Pentateuch in its
present form, there are still more than five hundred years to be
accounted for. It would be contrary to reason to suppose that the
text had been handed down through all these centuries without
suiferiug damage from the errors of scribes or the alterations of.
correctors, especially when we remember that in the course of that
period the whole style of writing had been changed by the intro-
duction of the square Hebrew characters, that the words were not
divided from one another, and that the vowels were not yet indi-
cated by any marks. It is thus natural in itself that the Hebrew
text as we have it now should need some correction. It is also
natural that the Septuagint version, which we can trace back to an
origin more than 850 years earlier than the Massoretic text, should
in some cases enable us to supply the needed correction. The
text of the Septuagint may itself have suffered much corruption
between the time of its composition and the time to which our
direct knowledge of it goes back ; but it is contrary to reason to
suppose that it has always been corrupted in those places where
the Hebrew has been corrupted, and that it does not sometimes
preserve the right reading where the Hebrew is wrong.
A partial confirmation of this conclusion is provided by the
Targums, the earliest portions of which go back a century or more
before the formation of the Massoretic text. In these there are
CONDITION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT, 87
indications that the text on which they were based, though very
J ^ i 1 like the Massoretic text, was not identical with it.
and certainly '
corrnpt in We can, however, go further, and show that there
somA nlacds
* is a much larger number of passages in which
corruption has almost certainly taken place between the date at
which the Septuagint was written and that at which the Masso-
retic text was formed. It would need an entire treatise to do this
thoroughly, but the reader of the Variorum Bible will iSnd a con-
siderable number of places noted in which the reading of the
Septuagint makes better sense than that of the Hebrew. In not a
few passages the Hebrew gives no natural meaning at all ; for
instance, Ex. 14. 20 ; 1 Sam. 13. 21 ; 27. 10 (where even the
Authorised Version departs from the Massoretic text) ; much of
1 Kings 6 & 7 ; Job 3. 14 ; 35. 15, and many other passages
indicated in the Variorum Bible. In other places verses are sup-
plied by the Septuagint which are not in the Hebrew ; in these it
will be a matter for critics to decide in each case whether the
Hebrew has wrongly omitted words, or the Septuagint wrongly
inserted them, but it is not likely that the answer will always be
the same. A list of some such passages has already been given on
p. 72. Again, take the larger variations there mentioned in the
Books of Jeremiah and Job. In the former the arrangement found
in the Septuagint is by many scholars considered preferable to
that of the Hebrew, and its text in many doubtful passages appears
to be superior. In Job the proof is even more complete ; for a \
large number of passages in it, which had already been believed, on
the ground of their style, to be later additions to the Hebrew, have
recently been shown to have been absent from the original text
of the Septuagint, and to have been added by Origen in his
Hexapla, with the usual marks indicating that they had been
introduced by him from the Hebrew. Once more, in the Penta- .
teuch we find the Septuagint and the Samaritan version often '
agreeing in opposition to the Hebrew ; and since there is no •
reasonable ground for asserting that either of these translations
was influenced by the other, we can only suppose that in such
passages they represent the original reading of the Hebrew, and
88 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
that the Massoretic text is corrupt. To this it may be added that
the " Book of Jubilees," a Jewish work written not long before the
fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and containing a modified veraion of
.the story of Genesis, frequently supports the Septuagint and
Samaritan readings in preference to those of the Hebrew.
It seems, then, reasonable to conclude that in many cases the
Septuagint certainly contains a better text than the Hebrew ; and
But the Septua- ^^ ^^^® ^® ®^' ^^ ^^ likely that it is often right in
glnt not always passages where we are not able to decide with
certainty between alternative readings. Can we
go further and say that it is generally so, and that wherever the
two differ, the presumption is in favour of the Septuagint ? Cer-
tainly notj without considerable qualifications. There can be no
doubt, first, that the Septuagint as originally written contained
many mistakes ; and, secondly, that the text of it has been much
corrupted in the course of ages. It must be remembered that
the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text in which the
words were not separated from one another and were unprovided
with vowel points. Hence some of the differences between the
Septuagint and the Hebrew do not imply a difference of reading
at all, but simply a difference in the division of the letters into
words or in the vowel points supplied. Sometimes the one may
be right and sometimes the other ; but in any case the difference
is one of int£rpretation, not of text. Then, again, there can be
no doubt that the authors of the Septuagint made many actual
mistakes of translation. Hebrew, it must be remembered, was
not their habitual language of conversation ; it was a matter of
study, as old English is to scholars to-day, and it was quite
possible for them to mistake the meaning of a word, or to confuse
words which were written or spoken nearly alike. The possibility
of such mistakes must be borne in mind, and only a good Hebrew
scholar can warn us of them.*
It is a more difficult point to decide whether the authors of
* Some interesting examples of errors caused by the Greek translator having
misunderstood the Hebrew, or having supplied the ivrong vowel points, are
given in the preface to the Variorum Apocrypha,
CONDITION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT. 89
the Septnagint made deliberate additions to the text. Translators
held a different view of their rights and duties from that which
would be accepted to-day. They thought them- ^
sJSlfait!' selves at liberty to add explanatory words and.
phrases, to paraphrase instead of adhering closely
to their original, to supplement what they believed to be omissions
(often by incorporating words from other passages where the same ,
or similar events were recorded, as from Kings into Chronicles, and
vice versa), perhaps even to insert incidents which they believed
to be true and edifying. This would seem to be the case with'
the additions to the Books of Daniel and Esther, which the Jews
I
refused to accept as part of the inspired Scriptures, and which
have been banished to the Apocrjrpha in the English Bible. In /
smaller details, the authors of the Septnagint seem at times to
have softened down strong expressions of the Hebrew, no doubt
from a feeling that the more refined literary taate of Alexandria
would be offended by them.
As to the corruptions of the Septnagint text, the history of it
in the preceding pages explains these suflGlciently. It is no easy/
task, in many places, to be sure what the true!
SeptaaginTtext. reading of the Septnagint is. Some manuscripts
represent the text of Origen, in which everything
has been brought into conformity with the Hebrew as it was in
his day ; many are more or less influenced by his text, or by the
versions of Aquila and Theodotion. Some represent the edition
of Lucian ; others that of Hesychius. Even those which belong
to none of these classes do not agree among themselves. The
great manuscripts known as A and B frequently differ very
markedly from one another, and X sometimes stands quite apart
from both. It is clear that in many cases it is impossible to '
correct the Hebrew from the Greek until we have first made
sure what the Greek reading really is.
One further possibility remains to be considered, that of de-f
liberate falsification of either Greek or Hebrew for party purposes..
Such accusations were made, both by Christians and by Jews,
90 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPTS.
in the early centuries of the Church's history, when the Jews
held to the Hebrew text as it was fixed about a.d. 100, and
the Christians to the Septuagint. They have
Deliberate , j i- x* i. j.* j -^^
fikUification of "^^ renewed from time to time ; and, quite
Hebrew not lately, Sir H. Howorth, in his contention for
proven. •^ ' '
the superiority of the Septuagint, has declared
the Massoretic text to have been deliberately altered by the Jews
with an anti-Christian purpose. But the proof for so serious a
charge is wholly lacking. It is true that the Hebrew Bible as
we know it assumed its present form at a time when the anta-
gonism between Jew and Christian was strongly marked, and
probably under the direction of the Rabbi Akiba, the great leader
of the extreme party of the Jews at the end of the first century.
At such a time and under such a leader it might seem not
impossible that an attempt would be made to remove from the
Old Testament those passages and expressions to which the
Christians referred most triumphantly as prophecies of Christ.
The best answer to such a charge is that these passages have
not been removed, and that the differences between the Massoretic
text and the Septuagint are by no means of this character. Nothing
can have been gained, from the party point of view, by altering
the order of the prophecies of Jeremiah, or by expanding the Book
of Job. The Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which were
ejected from the Hebrew text and retained in the Greek, do not
testify of Christ more than the undisputed books which remain in
both. The Christians had less reason to feel special interest in
the Books of the Maccabees than the patriotic Jews. Indeed, it is
untrue to say that the books of the Apocrypha were at this time
ejected from the Hebrew Bible ; the fact being that they had
never formed part of it, and were never quoted or used on the
same level as the books recognised as inspired. It is true that one
verse has dropped out of a long list of towns (after Josh. 15. 69),
in which was contained (as the Septuagint shows ; see Variorum
footnote) the name of " Ephratah, which is Bethlehem," by the
help of which the reference to Ephratah in Psalm 132. 6 might be
CONDITION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT. 91
interpreted as a prophecy of our Lord's birth at Bethlehem ; but
seeing that the same identification is repeated in four other place£(,
including the much more strongly Messianic passage in Micah
5. 2, the omission in Joshua alone would be perfectly useless for
party purposes, and may much more fairly be explained as an
accident. It is needless to add that the greater prophecies of the
Messiah, such as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, stand quite
untouched in the Hebrew, and that the vast majority of the
differences between the Hebrew and the Greek throughout the
Old Testament could have no possible partisan motive whatever.
The authors of our Revised Version of the Old Testament,
while recognising the probable existence of earlier editions of the
Hebrew differing from the Massoretic text, yet /
declare that "the state of knowledge on thej
subject is not at present such as to justify any attempt at an!
entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions,"
and have consequently "thought it most prudent to adopt the
Massoretic Text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it,
as the Authorised Translators had done, only in exceptional cases."
There can be no doubt that they did rightly. The versions have
as yet been too insuflSciently studied to justify a general use or a
rash reliance upon them. When the text of the Septuagint, in
particular, has been placed on a satisfactory footing (to which it is
to be hoped the forthcoming Cambridge edition will greatly con-
tribute) it will be time enough to consider how far its readings
may be taken in preference to those of the Hebrew. It is probable
that eventually a much fuller use will be made of the Septuagint
than has hitherto been the case, and those have done good work
who have called attention, even in exaggerated tones, to the claims
of the ancient Greek version ; but no general substitution of the
Greek for the Hebrew as the prime authority for the text of the
Old Testament will be possible unless the universal assent of
students be won to the change. It will not be enough for one
section of specialists to take up the cry, and, proclaiming them-
selves to be the only advanced and unprejudiced school, look down
92 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU3CBIPTS.
upon all others as unenlightened laggards. Such schools and such
cries, stimulative as they are of thought and of work, are for the
moment only. If the Massoretic text is ever to be driven from the
assured position of supremacy which it has held since the days of
Origen and of Jerome, it will only be when the great bulk of sober
criticism and the general intelligence of Biblical students have
been convinced that the change is necessary. It is very doubtful
whether such a conviction will ever be reached ; and meanwhile
the plain student of the Bible may take comfort in the thought
that, however interesting ' in detail the variations between the
versions and the Hebrew may be, they touch none of the great
fundamental teachings of the Old Testament. The history of the
Chosen People remains the same ; the moral eloquence of prophet
and psalmist is unaltered ; and still the Old Testament Scriptures
testify of Christ, as they have always testified.
( 93 )
CHAPTER VI
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
WHEN we pass from the Old Testament to the New, we pass
from obscurity into a region of comparative light. Light,
indeed, is plentiful on most of its history ; our danger is rather
lest we should be confused by a multiplicity of illumination from
different quarters, as the electric search-lights of a fleet often
hewilder those who use them. We know, within narrow limits,
the dates at which the various books of the New Testament were
written ; we have a multitude of manuscripts, some of them
reaching back to within 250 years of the date of the composition
of the books ; we have evidence from versions and the earlv
Christian writers which carry us almost into the apostolic age
itself. We shall find many more disputes as to minor points con-
cerning the text of the New Testament than we do in the Old,
just because the evidence is so plentiful and comes from so many
different quartei's ; but we shall find fewer doubts affecting its
general integrity.
The books of the New Testament were written between the
years 50 and 100 after Christ. If anyone demurs to this lower
limit as being stated too dogmatically, we would only say that it is
not laid down in ignorance that it has been con-
^MSS^^ tested, but in the belief that it has been contested
without success. But this is not the place for a
discussion on the date of the Gospels or Epistles, and if anyone
prefers a later date, he only shortens the period that elapsed
between the composition of the books in question and the date at
which the earliest manuscripts now extant were written. The
originals of the several books have long ago disappeared. They
must have perished in the very infancy of the Church ; for no
94 OVB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
allusion is ever made to tbem by any Christian writer.* We can
however, form some idea of what they must have looked like.
Each book, we must remember, was written separately, and there
can have been no idea at first of combining them into a single
collection corresponding in importance and sacredness to the Law,
the Prophets, and the Hagiographai St. Luke merely wrote down,
as many had taken in hand to do before, a memoir of our Lord's
life ; St. Paul wrote letters to the congregation at Kome or at
Corinth, just as we write to our friends in Canada or India. The
material used was, no doubt, papyrus (see p. 21) ; for this was the
common material for writing, whether for literary or for private
purposes, though parchment was used at times, probably, as the
instructions of the Talmud at a later date imply, for more im-
portant documents, such as the sacred books of the Old Testament.
Thus, when St. Paul directs Timothy to bring with him " the
books, but especially the parchments," the latter may well have
been copies of parts of the Old Testament ; the rest must have
been works written on papyrus, but of what nature we cannot tell.
His own letters would certainly have been written on papyrus ;
and the discoveries of the last fifty, and especially of the last five,
years have given us back not a few books and letters written on
this material by inhabitants of the neighbouring country of Egypt
at this very time. The elder of the church in Western Asia who
arose in his congregation to read the letter of St. Paul which we
know as the Epistle to the Ephesians, must have held in his hand
a roll of white or light yellow material about four feet in length and
some ten inches in height. The Acts of the Apostles might have
formed a portly roll of thirty feet, or might even have been divided
into two or more sections. Even had the idea been entertained of
making a collection of all the books which now form our New
Testament, it would have been quite impossible to have combined
them in a single volume, so long as papyrus was the material
employed.
A verj rhetorical passage in Tertullian may be ignored.
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 95
But in fact the formation of a single " New Testament " was
impossible, so long as no decision had been reached by the Church
to distinguish between the inspired and the un-
^MtefmeSr inspired books. The four Gospels had indeed
impossible at been marked off as a single authoritative group
first*
early in the second century ; and the epistles of
St. Paul formed a group by themselves, easily recognisable and
generally accepted. But in the second and third and even in the
fourth century the claims of such books as 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter,
Jude, and the Apocalypse were not admitted by all ; while other
early Christian writings, such as the Epistle of Clement, the epistle
which passed by the name of Barnabas, and the " Shepherd " of
Hermas, ranked almost, if not quite, on the same footing as the
canonical books. All this time it is highly improbable that the
sacred books were written otherwise than singly or in small groups.
Only when the minds of men were being led to mark off with some
unanimity the books held to be authoritative, are collected editions,
as we should now call them, likely to have been made. Only
gradually did men arrive at the conception of a Canon, or authori-
tative collection, of the New Testament which should rank beside
the Canon of the Old.
We need, then, feel no surprise either at the fact that all the
manuscripts of the first three centuries have (so far as we know)
perished, or at the gieat quantity of various readings which we
find to have come into existence by the time our earliest extant
manuscripts were written. The earliest Christians, a poor, scat-
tered, often illiterate body, looking for the return of their Lord at
no distant date, were not likely either to care sedulously for minute
accuracy of transcription, or to preserve their books religiously for
the benefit of posterity. Salvation was not to be secured by exact-
ness in copying the precise order of words ; it was the substance of
the teaching that mattered, and the scribe might even incorporate
into the narrative some incident which he believed to be equally
authentic, and think no harm in so doing. So divergent readings
would spring up, and different texts would become current in
96 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
different regions, each manuscript being a centre from which other
copies would be taken in its own neighbourhood. Persecution,
too, had a potent influence on the fortunes of the Bible text. On
the one hand, an edict such as that of Diocletian in 303, ordering
all the sacred books of the Christians to be burnt, would lead men
to distinguish between the sacred and non-sacred books, and so
assist the formation of an authoritative Canon. On the other
hand, numberless copies must have been destroyed by the Roman
oflScials during these times of persecution, the comparison of copies
with a view to removing their divergencies must have been
diflScult, and the formation of large and carefully written manu-
scripts must have been discouraged.
The change comes with the acceptance of Christianity by the
Emperor Constantine in a.d. 324. Christianity ceased to be perse-
cuted and became the religion of the Empire.
of'twrts^^eg^s ^^^ books needed no longer to be concealed ; on
"^ '**t?*^ ^^^" ^"^^ contrary, a great demand for additional copies
must have been created to supply the new churches
and the new converts. The Emperor himself instructed Eusebius
of Caesarea, the great historian of the early Church, to provide
fifty copies of the Scriptures for the churches of Constantinople ;
and the other great towns of the Empire must have required many
more for their own wants. Here then, and possibly not before,
we may find the origin of the first collected New Testaments ; and
here we are already in touch with the earliest manuscripts which
have come down to us, from which point the chain of tradition is
complete as far as our own days.
The oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament now in ex-
istence were written in the fourth century. Two splendid volumes,
one now in the Vatican Library at Rome, the other
from 4th to I5tli at St. Petersburg, are assigned by all competent
century. critics to this period. Two more were probably
written in the fifth century ; one of these is the glory of our own
British Museum, the other is in the National Library at Paris.
In addition to these there are perhaps twelve very fragmentary
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 97
manuscripts of the same century which contain only some small
portions of the New Testament. From the sixth century twenty-
seven documents have come down to us, but only five of these
contain so much as a single book complete. From the seventh
we have eight small fragments ; from the eighth six manuscripts
of some importance and eight fragments.* So far the stream
of tradition has run in a narrow bed. Time has, no doubt,
caused the destruction of many copies ; but it is also probable
that during these centuries not so many copies were made as
was the case subsequently. The style of writing then in use
for works of literature was slow and laborious. Each letter
was a capital, and had to be written separately ; and the copy-
ing of a manuscript must have been a long and toilsome task.
In the ninth century, however, a change was made of great
importance in the history of the Bible, and indeed of all ancient
Greek literature. In place of the large capitals hitherto employed,
a smaller style of letter came into use, modified in shape so as to
admit of being written continuously, without lifting the pen after
every letter. Writing became easier and quicker ; and to this fact/
we may attribute the marked increase in the number of manu-
scripts of the Bible which have come down to us from the ninthf
and tenth centuries. From this point numeration becomes useless.i
Instead of counting our copies by units we number them by tens
and scores and hundreds, until by the time that printing was
invented the total mounts up to a mass of several thousands.
And these, it must be remembered, are but the remnant which
has escaped the ravages of time and survived to the present
day. When we remember that the great authors of Greek and
Latin literature are preserved to us in a mere handful of copies,
in some cases indeed only in one smgle manuscript, we may
* It must be understood that the dates here given are not absolutely certain.
Early manuscripts on vellum are never dated, and their age can only be judged
from their handwriting. But the dates as here stated are those which have
been assigned by competent judges, and may be taken as approximately
correct.
S2764. G
Sf8 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
feel confident that in this great mass of Bible manuscripts we
have much security that the true text of the Bible has not been
lost on the way.
With the invention of printing in the fifteenth century a new
era opens in the history of the Greek text. The earliest printed
document (so far as Europe is concerned) was
pSfteTtlxts. ^^^^^ ^ ^^^ y^^^ 1^^^ 5 ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ complete
book produced by the printing press was, rightly
enough, the Bible, in 1456. This, however, was a Latin Bible ;
for Latin was, in the fifteenth century, the language of literature
in Western Europe. Greek itself was little known at this date.
It was only gradually that the study of it spread from Italy
(especially after the arrival there of fugitives from the East, when
the Turkish capture of Constantinople overthrew the Greek
Empire) over the adjoining countries to the other nations of the
West. It was not until the sixteenth century had begun that
there was any demand for a printed Greek Bible ; and the honour
of leading the way belongs to Spain. In 1502, Cardinal Ximenes
formed a scheme for a printed Bible containing the Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin texts in parallel columns. Many years were
spent in collecting and comparing manuscripts, with the assistance
of several scholars. It was not until 1514 that the New Testa-
ment was printed, and the Old Testament was only completed in
1517. Even then various delays occurred, including the death of
Ximenes himself, and the actual publication of this edition of the
Greek Bible (known as the Complutensian, from the Latin name
of Alcala, where it was printed) only took place in 1522 : and
by that time it had lost the honour of being the first Greek
Bible to be given to the world.
That distinction belongs to the New Testament of the great
Dutch scholar, Erasmus. He had been long making collections
, ^ , f or an edition of the Bible in Latin, when in
Testament, 1515 a proposal was made to him by a Swiss
printer, named Froben, to prepare an edition in
Greek which should anticipate that which Ximenes had in hand.
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99
Erasmus consented ; the work was rapidly executed and as rapidly
passed through the press ; and in 1516 the first printed copy of
the New Testament in the original Greek was given to the world.
The first edition was full of errors of the press, due to the failure
of a subordinate who had been entrusted with the duty of revising
the sheets ; but a second edition quickly followed, and a third,
and a fourth, each representing an advance in the direction of
a more accurate text. Erasmus' first edition was based on not
more than six manuscripts at the most, and of these only one
was either ancient or valuable, and none was complete, so that
some verses of the Apocalypse were actually re-translated by
Erasmus himself into Greek from the Latin ; and, what is more
remarkable, some words of this translation, which occur in no
Greek manuscript whatever, still hold their place in our received
Greek text. That text is, indeed, largely based on the edition of
Erasmus. The work of Ximenes was much more careful and
elaborate ; but it was contained in six large folio volumes, and only
600 copies were printed, so that it had a far smaller circulation
than that of Erasmus. The great printer-editor, Kobert Estienne
or Stephanus, of Paris (sometimes anglicised as Stephens, without
ground), issued several editions of the Greek New Testament,
based mainly on Erasmus, but corrected from the Complutensian
and from fifteen manuscripts, most of them comparatively late ;
and of these editions the third, printed in 1550, is
twrt.^^^ substantially the received text which has appeared
in all our ordinary copies of the Greek Bible in
England down to the present day. On the Continent the received
text has been that of the Elzevir edition of 1624, which differs very
slightly from that of Stephanus, being in fact a revision of the
latter with the assistance of the texts published in 1565-1611 by
the great French Protestant scholar Beza.
Such is the history of our received text of the Greek New
Testament ; and it will be obvious from it how little likelihood
It d ficie 'e ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ would be a really accurate
representation of the original language. For
G 2
100 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
fourteen hundred years the New Testament had been handed down
in manuscript, copy being taken from copy in a long succession
through the centuries, each copy multiplying and spreading errors
(slight, indeed, but not unimportant in the mass) after the manner
described in our first chapter. Yet when the great invention of
printing took place, and the words of the Bible could at last be
stereotyped, as it were, beyond the reach of human error, the first
printed text was made from a mere handful of manuscripts, and
those some of the latest and least trustworthy that existed. There
was no thought of searching out the oldest manuscripts and
trusting chiefly to them. The best manuscripts were still unknown
to scholars or inaccessible, and the editors had to content them-
selves with using such later copies as were within their reach,
generally those in their native town alone. Even these were not
always copied with such accuracy as we should now consider
necessary. The result is that the text accepted in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, to which we have clung from a natural
reluctance to change the words which we have learnt as those of
the Word of God, is in truth full of inaccuracies, many of which
can be corrected with absolute certainty from the vastly wider
information which is at our disposal to-day. The difference
between the Authorised Version and the Kevised Yersion shows
in great measure the difference between the text accepted at the
time of the first printed editions and that which commends itself
to the best modern scholars. We do not find the fundamentals
of our faith altered, but we find many variations in words and
sentences, and are brought so much nearer to the true Word of
God, as it was written down in the first century b^ Evangelist
and Apostle.
What, then, are the means which we have for correcting the
"received text," and for recovering the original words of the
New Testament ? This question will be answered
amen^g^it. ^^^® ^^^^J ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^'^^^ chapters ; but it
will be useful to take a brief survey of the
ground before us first, and to arrange in their proper groups
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 101
the materials with which we have to deal. As was explained
in the second chapter, the evidence by which the Bible text is
examined and restored is threefold. It consists of (1) ^Ianu-
SCRIPTS, (2) Versions, (3) Quotations in the Fathers.
1. Manuscripts. — The early papyrus manuscripts of the New
Testament have all perished (unless indeed some are still lying
buried in the soil of Egypt, which is far from improbable), and all
the extant manuscripts are written on vellum, with the exception
of a few scraps of papyrus, not earlier than the earliest vellum
MSS., and some quite late copies, which are on paper. They are
divided into two great classes, according to the style in which they
are written, namely uncials and cursives. Uncials are those
written throughout in capital letters, each formed separately {see
Plates VI., VIII. — ^XIII.). Cursives are those written in smaller
letters and in a more or less running hand {see Plate XIV.). As
explained above (p. 59), uncial manuscripts are the earliest, running
from the fourth century (and doubtless earlier if earlier MSS.
should be found) to the ninth, while cursives range from the ninth
to the fifteenth, and even later, wherever manuscripts were still
written after the invention of printing.*
Uncial manuscripts, being the oldest, are also the rarest and the
inost important. Including even the smallest fragments, only one
hundred and twelve uncial manuscripts of the
Greek New Testament are known to exist, and of
these only two contain all the books of it, though two more
are nearly perfect. The books of the New Testament, before
♦ This sharp distinction in time between uncial and cursive writing does not
apply to papyri. Here we find cursive writing side by side with uncial from
the earliest times at which Greek writing is known to us (the third century B.C.).
The i-easbn for the difference in the case of vellum MSS. is simply that vellum
was only employed for books intended for general use, and for such boots
uncial writing was regularly used until the ninth century, because it was the
most handsome style. In the ninth century an ornamental style of running-
hand was invented, and this superseded uncials as the style usual in boots.
A cursive hand must always have existed for use in private documents, where
publication was not intended.
102 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
they were gathered into one collection, were formed into four
groups, viz. Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles,
Apocalypse ; and most manuscripts contain only one, or at
most two, of these groups. Uncial manuscripts are distinguished
for purposes of reference by capital letters of the Latinj Greek,
or Hebrew alphabets, such as A, B, A, K, etc,, as the reader may
see by looking at the notes on any page of the New Testament
in the Variorum Bible. Keserving a full description of these
manuscripts for the next chapter, it will be sufficient for the
present to say that the most important of them are those known
as B (Codex Vaticanus) and K (Codex Sinaiticus), which are
assigned to the fourth century ; A (Codex Alexandrinus) and C
(Codex Ephraemi), of the fifth century ; D (of the Gospels), Dj
(Pauline Epistles), and Eg (Acts and Catholic Epistles), of the
sixth century. These are the main authorities upon which the
text of the New Testament is based, though they need to be
supplemented and reinforced by the testimony of the later copies,
both uncial and cursive.
Cursive manuscripts are enormously more common than uncials.
The earliest of them date from the ninth century, and from the
tenth century to the fifteenth the cursives were
the Bible of Eastern Europe. Many have no
doubt perished ; but from the fact of their having been written
nearer to the times of the revival of learning many have been
preserved. Every great library possesses several of them, and
many are no doubt still lurking in unexamined corners, especially
in out-of-the-way monasteries in the East. The latest enumeration
of those whose existence is known gives the total as 2429, besides
1273 LectionarieSj^or volumes containing the lessons, from. the New
Testament prescribed to be read during the Church's year. Even
deducting duplicates, where a manuscript has been counted more
than once owing to its containing more than one of the above-
mentioned groups (each of which has a separate series of numbers),
the total comes to just over 3000. They are referred to simply by
numbers ; for instance, Evan. 100 means cursive manuscript No. 100
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 103
of the Gospels,* Act. 100 = cursive No. 100 of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, Paul. 100 = cursive No. 100 of the Pauline Epistles,
Apoc. 100 = cursive No. 100 of the Apocalypse, Evst. {i.e^ Evange-
listarium) 100 = lectionary of the Gospels No. 100, and Aposb.
100 == lectionary of the Acts an(J Epistles No. 100. Thus if a
manuscript contains more than one of these groups of books, it
appears in more than one list, and generally with a different
number in each ; for instance a certain manuscript in the British
Museum, which contains the whole New Testament (a very rare
occurrence, only about thirty MSS. in all being thus complete), is
consequently described as Evan. 584, Act. 228, Paul. 269, Apoc. 97.
These, however, are minutias which concern only the Biblical
scholar. The cursive manuscripts, with few exceptions, are rarely
quoted as authorities for the text. Their importance is chiefly
collective, as showing which of two readings, where the leading
uncials are divided, has been adopted in the great mass of later
copies. In the Variorum Bible it has rightly been thought best to
omit all mention of them, as needlessly cumbering the critical
notes. The vast majority of cursives contain substantially the
same type of text, that, namely, which appears in the received text
and is translated in our Authorised Yersion. The cursives which
appear to contain a better and an older form of the text, approxi-
mating to that of the leading uncials, are those known as Act. 61
and Evan. 33 ( = Act. 13 = Paul. 17) ; next to these, Evan. 1, 13,
81, 157, 209 ; Act. 31, 44, 137, 180.
2. Yersions. — The most important versions, or translations of
the New Testament into other languages, are the Syriac, Egyptian,
and Latin. They will be described in detail in the next chapter
but one, but a short statement of their respective dates is necessary
here, in order that we may understand the history of the New
Testament text. As soon as Christianity spread beyond the borders
of Palestine there was a necessity for translations of the Scriptures
♦ Evan, stands for Evangelium, the Latin form of the Greek word which
we translate " Gospel.*'
104 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPTS.
into all these languages. Syria was the nearest neighbour of
Palestine, Egypt a prominent literary centre and the home of many
Jews, while Latin was the language of Africa and Italy and the
West of Europe generally. At first, no doubt, Christian instruc-
tion was given by word of mouth, but in the course of the second
century written translations of most, at any rate, of the New
Testament books had been made in these languages ; and these
versions are of great value to us now, since from them we can
often gather what reading of a disputed passage was found in the
very early copies of the Greek Testament from which the original
translations were made. In Syriac four versions are known to
have been made : (1) the Old St/riac, of the Gospels only ; (2) the
Feshitto, the standard translation of the whole Bible into Syriac ;
(3) the JlarJcleian, a revisiou made by Thomas of Harkel in
A.D. 616 of an earlier version made in a.d. 608 ; (4) the Pales-
tinian, an independent version from the Greek, extant in fragments
only, and of doubtful date. Of these the Old Syriac and the
Peshitto are much the most important. In Egypt no less than
five versions were current in different dialects of the Coptic or
native tongue, but only two of these are at present known to be
important for critical purposes : (1) the Memphitic or Bohairic,
\ belonging to Lower Egypt ; (2) the Thebaic or Sahidic, of Upper
Egypt. Both of these appear to have been made about the
j beginning of the third century, or perhaps earlier ; but the Thebaic
exists only in fragments. The Latin versions are two in number,
\ both of great importance : (1) the Old Latin, made early in the
second century, and extant (though only in fragments) in three
somewhat varying shapes, known respectively as African, Euro-
pean, and Italian ; (2) the Vulgate, which is the revision of the
I Old Latin by St. Jerome at the end of the fourth century. Other
' early translations of the Scriptures exist in various languages —
Armenian, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Gothic ; but these are neither
so early nor so important as those we have mentioned. The Old
Syriac, Peshitto, Memphitic, Thebaic, Old Latin, and Vulgate
versions are referred to in the notes of the Variorum Bible, and
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 105
they are unquestionably the most important of the versions for the
purposes of textual criticism.
8. Fathers. — The evidence of early Christian writers for the text
of the New Testament begins to be availably about the xniidlexif
the second century. The most important are Justin Martyr (died
A.D. 164) ; Tatian, the author of a famous Harmony of the Gospels,
recently recovered in an Arabic translation (died a.d. 172) ;
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who flourished about a.d. 178 ; Clement
of Alexandria, at the end of the century ; Hippolytus of Eome
and Origen of Alexandria, in the first half of the third century ;
and the two great Latin writers of Africa, Tertullian and Cyprian,
the former at the beginning of the third century, and the latter
about the middle of it. Later still we have the great scholars,
1 Eusebius of Caesarea in the first half of the fourth century, and
\ Jerome in the second. The evidence of the Fathers has, however, ■
to be used with care. As has been already explained (p. 16),
copyists were liable to alter the words of a Scriptural quotation in
the Fathers into the shape most familiar to themselves, so that the
evidence of a Father is less trustworthy when it is in favour of a
commonly accepted reading than when it is against it ; and
further, the early writers were apt to quote from memory, and so
to make verbal errors. When, however, we can be sure that we
have a quotation in the form in which the Father actually wrote
it (and the context sometimes makes this certain), the evidence is
of great value, because the Father must have been copying from a
manuscript of the Bible much older than any that we now poss^ess.
There is also this further advantage, that we generally know in
what part of the world each of the Fathers was writing, and so can
tell in what country certain corruptions of the text began or were
most common. This is a very important consideration in the part
of the inquiry to which we are now coming.
Now when we have got all this formidable array of authorities,
— our three thousand Greek manuscripts, our versions in half-a-
dozen languages, and all the writings of the Fathers — what more
can be done ? Are we simply to take their evidence on each
106 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
disputed passage, tabulate the authorities for each various reading,
and then decide according to the best of our judgment which
reading is to be preferred in each several case ? Well, very much
can be, and very much has been done by this method. Allowing
proper weight for the superior age of the leading uncial manu-
scripts, so that the evidence of the uncials shall not be overborne by
the numerical preponderance of late cursives, a mere statement
of the authorities on either side will often be decisive. Thus, if
we find in Mark 7. 19 that eight of the later uncials and hundreds
of cursives have the received reading, " purging all meats," while
t^, A, B, E, F, Q-, H, L, S, X, A, and three Fathers have a
slight variety which gives the sense, "This he said, making all
meats clean," no one will doubt that the superiority, both of
authority and of sense, is on the side of the latter, even though
the numerical preponderance of MSS. is with the former ; and
consequently we find that all editors and the Eevised Version have
rejected the received reading. This is only one instance out of a
great many, which the reader of the Variorum Bible or of any
critical edition can easily pick out for himself, in which a simple
inspection of the authorities on either side and of the intrinsic
merit of the alternative readings is sufficient to determine the
judgment of editors without hesitation.
But is it possible to go beyond this ? Can we, instead of simply
estimating our authorities in order of their age, arrange them into
groups which have descended from common an-
of aSho^es. oestors, and determine the age and character of
each group ? It is obvious that no manuscript
can have greater authority than that from which it is copied, and
that if a hundred copies have been taken, directly or indirectly,
from one manuscript, while five have been taken from another
which is older and better, then if we find the hundred supporting
one reading, while the five support another, it is the five and not
^}he hundred which we ought to follow. In other words, the
number of manuscripts in a group which has a common parentage
proves nothing, except that the form of text represented by that
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 107
1 —
group was preferred in former times ; which may or may not
be an important factor of the evidence. It does not in itself prove
superiority in either age or merit. The question then arises, is it
possible to arrange the authorities for the text of the New Testa-
ment in groups of this kind ? The general answer of critics,
tacitly at least, has been, No. It has been very rare, in the history
of Biblical criticism, to find an editor forming his manuscripts
into groups. They have generally been content to use the best
manuscripts that were available to them, and to judge each on its
own merits, or even, at times, to decide every question according
to numerical preponderance among a small number of selected
manuscripts.
One critic of earlier days, however, Griesbach by name, at the
end of the last century, essayed the task of grouping, and two
distinguished Cambridge scholars of our own day,
Hort*8*theo^. Bishop "Westcott and the late Professor Hort,
have renewed the attempt with much greater
success. They believe that by far the larger number of our extant
MSS. can be shown to contain a revised (and less original) text ;
that a comparatively small group has texts derived from manu-
scripts which escaped, or were previous to, this revision ; and that,
consequently, the evidence of this small group is almost always
to be preferred to that of the great mass of MSS. and versions.
It is this theory, which has been set out with conspicuous learning
and conviction by Dr. Hort, that we propose now to sketch in
' brief ; for it appears to mark an epoch in the history of New
Testament criticism.
An examination of passages in which two or more difiFerent
readings exist shows that one small group of authorities, consisting
of the uncial manuscripts B, K, L, a few cursives
MS^hi^N.T. ^^'^^ ^^ Evan. 33, Act. 61, and the Memphitic
and Thebaic versions, is generally found in agree-
ment ; another equally clearly marked group consists of D, the Old
Latin and Old Syriac versions, and cursives 13, 69, 81 of the
Gospels, 44, 137, and 180 of the Acts, and Evsfc. 39, with a few
108 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPT3.
ji
others more intermittently; while A, C (generally), the later
uncials, and the great mass of cursives and the later versions form
another group, numerically overwhelming. Sometimes each of
these groups will have a distinct reading of its own ; sometimes
two of them will be combined against the third ; sometimes an
authority which usually supports one group will be found with
one of the others. But the general division into groups remains
constant and is the basis of the present theory.
Next, it is possible to distinguish the origins and relative
priority of the groups. In the first place, many passages occur
-J . , in which the first group described above has one
or "conflate" reading, the second has another, and the third
combines the two. Thus in the last words of
St. Luke's Gospel (as the Variorum Bible shows), K? B, C, L,
with the Memphitic and one Syriac version, have "blessing
God " ; D and the Old Latin have " praising God " ; but A
and twelve other uncials, all the cursives, the Vulgate and other
versions, have " praising and blessing God.** Instances like this
:occur, not once nor twice, but repeatedly. Now it is in itself
more probable that the combined reading in such cases is later
than, and is the result of, two separate readings. It is more likely
that a copyist, finding two different words in two or more manu-
scripts before him, would put down both in his copy, than that two
scribes, finding a combined phrase in their originals, would each
select one part of it alone to copy, and would each select a different
one. The motive for combining would be praiseworthy, — the
desire to make sure of keeping the right word by retaining both ;
but the motive for separating would be vicious, since it involves
the deliberate rejection of some words of the sacred text. More-
over we know that such combination was actually practised ; for,
as has been stated above, it is a marked characteristic of Lucian's
edition of the Septuagint.
At this point the evidence of the Fathers becomes important
as to both the time and the place of origin of these combined (or
as Dr. Hort technically calls them "conflate") readings. They
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 109
are found to be characteristic of the Scripture quotations in
Eocali tio of *'^® works of Chrysostom, who was bishop of
groups by aid Antioch in Syria at the end of the fourth cen-
tury, and of other writers in or about Antioch at
the same time ; and thenceforward it is the predominant text in
manuscripts, versions, and quotations. Hence this type of text,
the text of our later uncials, cursives, early printed editions, and|
Authorised Version, is believed to have taken its rise in or near
Antioch, and is known as the " Syrian " text. The type found in
the second of the groups above described, that headed by D, thej
Old Latin and Old Syriac, is called the " Western " text, as being
especially found in Latin manuscripts and in those which (like D)
have both Greek and Latin texts, though it is certain that it had ,
its origin in the East, probably in or near Asia Minor. There
is another small group, earlier than the Syrian, but not represented
continuously by any one MS. (mainly by C in the Gospels, A, C,
in Acts and Epistles, with certain cursives and occasionally N and
L), to which Dr. Hort gives the name of " Alexandrian." The
remaining group, headed by B, may be best described as the
" Neutral " text.
Now among all the Fathers whose writings are left to us from
before the middle of the third century (notably IrenaBus, Hippo-
lytus, Clement, Origen, TertuUian, and Cyprian),
readings latest. ^^ ^^^ readings belonging to the groups described
as "Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral, but no
distinctly Syrian readings. On the other hand we have seen that
in the latter part of the fourth century, especially in the region of
Antioch, Syrian readings are found plentifully. Add to this the
fact that, as stated above, the Syrian readings often show signs
of having been derived from a combination of non-Syrian readings,
and we have strong confirmation of the belief, which is the corner-
stone of Dr. Hort's theory, that the Syrian type of text originated
in a revision of the then existing texts, made about the end of the
third century in or near Antioch. The result of accepting this
conclusion obviously is, that where the Syrian text differs from
110 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
that of the other groups, it must be rejected as being of later
origin, and therefore less authentic ; and when it is remembered
that by far the greater number of our authorities contain a Syrian
text, the importance of this conclusion is manifest. In spite of
their numerical preponderance, the Syrian authorities must be
relegated to the lowest place.
Of the remaining groups, the Western text is characterised by
considerable freedom of addition, and sometimes of omission.
Whole verses, or even longer passages, are found
'^'""'irTC" ^ manuscripts of this family, which are entirely
absent from all other copies. Some of them will
be found enumerated in the following chapter in the description of
D, the leading manuscript of this class. It is evident that this type
of text must have had its origin in a time when strict exactitude in
copying the books of the New Testament was not regarded as a
necessary virtue. In early days the copies of the New Testament
books were made for immediate edification, without any idea that
they would be links in a chain for the transmission of the sacred
texts to a distant future ; and a scribe might innocently insert in
the narrative additional details which he believed to be true and
valuable. Fortunately the literary conscience of Antioch and
Alexandria was more sensitive, and so this tendency did not spread
very far, and was checked before it had greatly contaminated the
Bible text. Western manuscripts often contain old and valuable
readings, but any variety which shows traces of the characteristic
Western vice of amplification or explanatory addition must be
rejected, unless it has strong support outside the purely Western
group of authorities.
There remain the Alexandrian and the Neutral groups. The
Alexandrian text is represented, not so much by any individual
_, MS. or version, as by certain readings found
" Alexandrian " scattered about in manuscripts which elsewhere be-
long to one of the other groups. They are readings
which have neither AYestern nor Syrian characteristics, and yet
differ from what appears to be the earliest form of the text ; and
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ill
being found most regularly in tlie quotations of Origen, Cyril of
Alexandria, and other Alexandrian Fathers, as well as in the
Memphitic version, they are reasonably named Alexandrian.
Their characteristics are such as might naturally be due to such a
centre of Greek scholarship, since they afiFect the style rather than
the matter, and appear to rise mainly from a desire for correctness
of language. They are consequently of minor importance, and are
not always distinctly recognisable.
The Neutral text, which we believe to represent most nearly the
original text of the New Testament, is chiefly recognisable by the
absence of the various forms of aberration noticed
group.^ ^ ^'^^ other groups. Its main centre is at Alex-
andria, but it also appears in places widely
removed from that centre. Sometimes single authorities of the
Western group will part company with the rest of their family and
exhibit readings which are plainly both ancient and non-Western,
showing the existence of a text preceding the Western, and on
which the Western variations have been grafted. This text must
therefore not be assigned to any local centre. It belonged origi-
nally to all the Eastern world. In many parts of the East, notably
in Asia Minor, it was superseded by the text which, from its
transference to the Latin churches, we call Western. It remained
pure longest in Alexandria, and is found in the writings of the
Alexandrian Fathers, though even here slight changes of language
were introduced, to which we have given the name of Alexandrian.
Our main authority for it at the present day is the great Vatican
manuscript known as B, and this is often supported by the
equally ancient Sinaitic manuscript ({<), and by the other manu-
scripts and versions named above (p. 107). Where the readings
of this Neutral text can be plainly discerned, as by the concurrence
of all or most of these authorities, they may be accepted with con-
fidence in the face of aU the numerical preponderance of other
texts ; and in so doing lies our best hope of recovering the true
words of the New Testament. .
The following diagram may perhaps serve to make more clear
112 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MJlfUSCBlPTS.
the variotiB groups of textual anthorities, all more or less divergent
from the true and ordinal text. It must be imderatood, however,
that it 18 only a very rough approximation to the facts, the iuter-
mixtureof texts in all extant manuscripts being far too complicated
to be represented by any diagram. The Western family is depicted
■on the left, the Syrian on the right, the Alexandiian and the
Kentral between them.
ffrl^OtalMi'S.
Such is, in brief, the theory of Dr. Hort. Its importance in the
history of the Bible text, espwially in England, is evident when it
.is seen that it lai^elv influenced the Revisers of
Importance of i
Westcott and our English Bible. The text underlying the
Einrt'B theorj.
indeed go so far aa that
of Westcott and Hort in its departure from the received text and
from the mass of manuscripts other than B, N, and their fellows ;
but it is unquestionable that the cogent ai^uments of the Cam-
bridge Professors had a great effect on the Revisers, and most of
the leading scholars of the country have given in their allegiance
to the theory. It is indeed on these lines alone that progress in
Biblical criticism is possible. The mere enumeration of authorities
for and against a disputed reading, — the acceptance of the verdict
of a majority — is plainly impossible, since it would amount to con-
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. llS
stracting our text from the latest and least original MSS. To
select a certain number of the earliest MSS. and count their votes
alone (as was done by Lachmann) is better ; but this too is un-
critical, and involves the shutting of our eyes to much light which
is at our service. To estimate the intrinsic merit of each reading
in a disputed passage, taking into account the general predominance
of good authorities on one side or the other, is better still, and
good critics have gone far by this method ; but it still leaves much
to the personal taste and judgment of the critic, which in the last
resort can never be convincing. Only if our authorities can be
divided into groups — if their genealogical tree, so to speak, can be
traced with some approach to certainty, so that the earlier branches
may be distinguished from the later, — only so is there any chance
of our criticism advancing on a sound basis and being able to com-
mand a general assent.
It is, however, only fair to admit that Dr. Hort's theory has not
been accepted by all competent judges, and that some, notably
Dr. Scrivener and Dean Burgon, are vehemently
opposed to it (are, we may say, for though they,
like the great scholar whom they criticised, have passed away
from earth, their opinions and their writings live on). The main
difficulty (and it is a real one) in the theory is that there is ab-
solutely no historical coniirmation of the Syrian revision of the text,
which is its corner-stone. It is rightly urged that it is very
strange to find no reference among the Fathers to so important an
event as an official revision of the Bible text and its adoption as the
standard text throughout the Greek world. We know the names
of the scholars who made revisions of the Septuagint and of the
Syriac version ; but there is no trace of those who carried out the
far more important work of fixing the shape of the Greek New
Testament. Is not the whole theory artificial and illusory, the
vain imagining of an ingenious mind, like so many of the pro-
ducts of modern criticism, which spins endless webs out of its own
interior, to be swept away to-morrow by the ruthless broom of
common sense ?
S 27M. H
114 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPTS.
Against this indictment may be placed the consideration that
even if we can find np historical reference to a revision, yet the
critical reasons which indicated the separation of
of ^Wecti^^^ ^^^ Syrian text from the rest, and its inferiority
in date, remain untouched. We still have the
groups of authorities habitually found in conjunction ; we still
have the fact that the readings of the group we have called Syrian
are shown by their intrinsic character to be probably later than
the non-Syrian ; and we still have the fact that readings of the
Syrian type are not found in any authorities earlier than about
A.D. 250. Unless these facts can be controverted, the division into
groups and the relative inferiority of the Syrian group must be
considered to be established. At the same time, if it is permissible
to suggest a modification of Dr. Hort's theory, it does seem possible
that the formal revision of the sacred text in or about Antioch
may be a myth. Dr. Hort himself divides the revision into two
stages, separated by some interval of time, and thus doubles the
difficulty of accounting for the total absencq of any mention of
a revision. It seems possible that the Syrian text is the result
rather of a process continued over a considerable period of time
than of a set revision by constituted authorities. In the com-
paratively prosperous days of the third century the Church had
leisure to collect and compare diiferent copies of the Scriptures
hitherto passing without critical examination. At a great centre
of Christianity, such as Antioch, the principle may have been
established by general consent that the best way to deal with di-
vergencies of readings was to combine them, wherever possible, to
smooth away difficulties and harshnesses, and to produce an even
and harmonious text. Such a principle might easily be adopted by
the copyists of a single neighbourhood, and so lead in time to the
creation of a local type of text, just as the Western text must be
supposed to have been produced, not by a formal revision, but by
the development of a certain way of dealing with the text in a
certain region. The subsequent acceptance of the Antiochian or
Syrian type as the received text of the Greek New Testament
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 115
would be due to the action of Constantine on the adoption of
Christianity by the Empire. The fifty copies which Eusebius of
CaBsarea caused to be made at the Emperor's command for the
churches of Constantinople would naturally follow the texts current
in his own neighbourhood and represented in the library of Pam-
philus which existed at Caesarea. But since Antioch was probably
in more intimate connection with Syria and Palestine than was
Alexandria, these texts would most naturally be of the Syrian
type ; and when Constantinople and Antioch led the way, the
rest of the Grreek world would be likely to follow.
It is at any rate certain that this one type of text predominated
in the Eastern world from the fifth century onwards ; that the
Greek manuscripts which found their way westward at the close of
the Middle Ages were entirely of this class, and that it was from
these that the " received text " of the Greek Scriptures was con-
structed in the early days of printed editions. On the basis of this
text our Authorised Version was made ; and it still survives in aU
the ordinary printed copies of the Greek Testament. Only within
the last two centuries, and especially within the last fifty years, has
the attempt been seriously made to use all the available materials in
order to correct this text and to get back as nearly as may be to
the original language of the sacred books. It is always possible,
and not even improbable, that the soil of Egypt, so fertile in dis-
coveries, may yet be preserving for us copies on papyrus earlier
than any manuscripts which we now possess ; but, except for such
external aid, the best hope for progress in textual criticism appears
to lie along the track that has been opened out by the genius and
learning of Dr. Hort.
\
H 2
( 116 )
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.
THE CHIEF EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
THE earliest printed editions of the New Testament — ^tiiose of
Erasmus, Ximenes, Stephanos, and Beza — ^have been men-
tioned in the preceding chapter (pp. 98, 99), and there would be
little profit or interest in a list of all the editions which have
followed these down to the present day. But since certain editors
stand out above their fellows by reason of their exceptional services
towards the improvement of the text, and their opinions are often
quoted among the authorities presented to the student in critical
editions, it may be useful to give (mainly from the more detailed
histories of Tregelles and Scrivener) some slight record of their
labours, and of the principles adopted by them. It will not be
inappropriate, in a history of the Bible text, to record the names
of those who have especially devoted their lives to the task of
freeing it from the errors of past ages, and the restoration of it, as
near as may be, to its original truth.
There are two steps in this operation ; first, the collection of
evidence, and, secondly, the using of it. The " received text," as
shown above, was based on the comparison of a few manuscripts,
mostly of late date, and for more than a century the most pressing
need was the examination of more and better manuscripts. Brian
Walton, afterwards Bishop of Chester, led the way in 1657, by
publishing in his Polyglott Bible the readings of fourteen hitherto
unexamined MSS., including the uncials. A, D, and Dg ; but the
real father of this department of textual criticism is John Mill
(1645-1710), of Queen's College, Oxford. Mill, in 1707, reprinted
Stephanus' text of 1550, with only accidental divergencies, but
added the various readings of nearly 100 manuscripts, and thereby
provided all subsequent scholars with a broad basis of established
evidence. Richard Bentley (1662-1742), the most famous of
all English classical scholars, planned a critical edition of the New
Testament in both Greek and Latin, and to that end procured
THE CHIEF EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117
^ II 1^^—^ I ■■■ ■■■-■■ I .^M— ^^^ ■■ ■■! ■■ ^ ■■ ■ ■ I ■ I _---■ I— ■l-,,l-
collations of a large number of good manuscripts in both lan-
guages ; but an increasing sense of the complexity of the task, and
the distraction of other occupations, prevented the ccwnpletion of
his work, and his masses of materials proved of little use. He
had, however, stimulated others to carry on the task he left un-
finished, and J. J. Wetstein (1693-1754), of Basle, who had
originally worked for Bentley, made very large additions to the
stores of manuscript evidence. His New Testament, published in
1751-2, quotes the readings of more than 300 MSS., including
nearly all those which are now recognised as being of the greatest
value. To this list some seventy more were added by C. F.
Matth^i (1744-1811).
Meanwhile other scholars had begun to turn their attention to
the use of the materials thus collected ; and the pioneer of critical
method was J. A. Bengel, of Tubingen (1687-1752). To this
scholar belongs the honour of having been the first to divide the
manuscripts of the New Testament into groups. The great
majority of MSS. he assigned to a group which he called the
Asiatic, though its headquarters were at Constantinople, while the
few better ones were classed as African, Bengel did not, however,
advance far with this principle, and the first- working out of it
must be assigned to J. J. Gbiesbach (1745-1812), who made a
careful classification of MSS. into three groups, the Alexandrian,
the Western, and the Byzantine. These groups roughly correspond
to the Neutral, Western, and Syrian groups of Dr. Hort, of whom
Griesbach is the true forerunner. On the basis of this classifica-
tion Grriesbach drew up lists of readings which he regarded as, in
greater or less degree, preferable to those of the received text, and
so paved the way for the formal construction of a revised Greek
Testament.
So far all editors had been content to reprint the received text
of the New Testament, merely adding their collections of various
readings in foot-notes ; but with the nineteenth century a new
departure was made, and we reach the region of modern textual
criticism, of which the principle is, setting aside the "received
118 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NANUSCBIPTS.
text,'* to construct a new text with the help of the best authorities
now available. The author of this new departure was C. LACHMAim
(17^8-1861), who published in 1842-60 a text constructed accord-
ing to principles of his own devising. Out of all the mass of
manuscripts collected by Mill, Wetstein, and their colleagues, he
selected a few of the best (A, B, C, and sometimes D, with the
fragments P, Q, T, Z, in the Gospels ; D, Ej, in the Acts ; Dj, Gj,
Hs, in the Pauline Epistles ; together with some of the best MSS.
of the Latin Vulgate, and a few of the Fathers), and from these
he endeavoured to recover the text of the New Testament as it
was current in the fourth century (when the earliest of these
authorities were written) by the simple method of counting the
authorities in favour of each reading, and always following the
majority. Lachmann's method was too mechanical in its rigidity,
and the Ust of his authorities was too small ; at the same time his
use of the best authorities led him to many unquestionable im-
provements on the received text. Lachmann was followed by the
two great Biblical critics of the last generation, Tischendorf and
Tregelles, who unite in themselves the two distinct streams of
textual criticism, being eminent alike in the collection and the use
of evidence. A. F« C^ischendobf (1815^1874) published no
fewer than eight editions of the Greek New Testament, with an
increasing quantity of critical material in each ; and the last of
these (1864-72, with prolegomena on the MSS., versions, etc., by
Gregory, in 1884-94) remains still the standard collection of
evidence for the Greek text. Besides this, he published trustworthy
editions of a large number of the best individual manuscripts,
crowning the whole with his great discovery and publication of the
Codex Sinaiticus, as described in the next chapter. Tischendorf's
services in the publication of texts (including N, C, D^, E^, L, and
many more of the Greek New Testament, with the Codex Amia-
tinus of the Latin) are perfectly inestimable, and have done more
than anything else to establish textual criticism on a sound basis.
His use of his materials, in his revisions of the New Testament
text, is less satisfactory, owing to the considerable fluctuations in
THE CHIEF EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11&
his judgments between one edition and the next ; but here, too,
his work has been very useful. S. P. Tregelles (1813-1875)
published only two MSS. in full, but collated very many with great
accuracy, and used his materials with judgment in the preparation
of a revised text. Like Lachmann, he based his text exclusively
on the ancient authorities ; but he used a larger number of thenij
paid much attention to the versions and Fathers, and did not tie
himself down to obedience to a numerical majority among his
witnesses. Like Tischendorf, he followed no principle of grouping
in his use of his authorities, so that his choice of readings is liable
to depend on personal preference among the best attested variants ;
but his experience and judgment were such as to entitle his opinion
to very great weight.
Of Westcott and Hort we have spoken at length in the pre-
ceding chapter, showing how they revived Griesbach's principle,
and worked it out with greater elaboration and with a far fuller
command of material. Their names close, for the present, the
list of editors of the Greek New Testament whose attention has
been directed especially to its text rather than (as with Alford,
Lightfoot, Weiss, and others) its interpretation. It is right, how-
ever, to mention the names -of one or two scholars who have
devoted their attention to textual studies without actually publish-
ing revised texts of their own. Chief among these is F. H. A.
Scrivener, who, besides editing the manuscripts D and F^ and
collating a number of cursives, wrote, in his Introduction to the
Griticism of the New Testament^ the standard history of the New
Testament text. J. W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, was another '
scholar of immense industry, learning, and zeal in textual matters,
although his extreme distaste for innovations led him to oppose,
rightly or wrongly, nearly every new departure in this field or in
any other. To Scrivener and Burgon may especially be attributed
the defence of the principle that all the available authorities should,
so far as possible, be taken into consideration, and not only the
most ancient. They attached much weight to the evidence of the
great mass of MSS. headed by A and C, while they opposed the
120 pUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANVSCBIPT8,
^ — ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ I ■■■ . ■ .1 .. ■ I . . !■ ■■ . . I. —..-■■. ■■ .1 ■ ■ ■ ■ I ^^^mt^ .
tendency of Westcott and Hort, and their followers, to defer
almost invariably to the testimony of B and K- In this respect
they are supported by J. B. M^Clellan, who published in 1875
an English version of the Gospels, based upon a revision of
the Greek, in which internal probability is taken as the most
trustworthy guide in the selection between disputed readings ; a
principle which leaves much to the individual judgment, and in-
curs the danger of determining what it is right that God's Word
should say, instead of patiently examining to see what it does say.
The foregoing list includes all the editors whom the reader
may expect to find often quoted in any textual commentary
on the Bible which he is likely to use, and may, it is hoped,
help him to understand the principles on which their opinions
are given. To the reader who wishes to find a statement of
the evidence on all important passages in the New Testament,
without wading through such a mass of material as that pro-
vided by Tischendorf, the following hints may be useful. The
Cambridge school Greek Testament, edited by Scrivener, gives
the received text, with notes stating the readings adopted by
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tr^elles, Westcott and Hort, and the
Revised Version of 1881. The Oxford Greek Testament, which
contains the received text as edited by Bishop Lloyd in 1828, has
recently been provided by Prof. Sanday with an appendix contain-
ing an admirable selection of various readings, and a statement of
the principal manuscripts, versions. Fathers, and editors in favour
of each, and, in addition, a complete collation of the text of West-
cott and Hort. This may be confidently recommended to students
who wish for a handy critical edition of the Greek text. Finally,
the student who prefers to use the English Bible will find a simi-
lar collection of evidence, amply sufficient for all practical purposes,
and excellently selected by Prof. Sanday and Mr. R. L. Clarke, in
the notes to the Variorum Bible ; where he will likewise find notes
which summarize the best opinions on the translation, as well as
the text, of the most important passages about which there is any
doubt«
( 121 )
CHAPTER VIL
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
THE romance of Biblical criticism is to be fomid in connection
with the history of the manuscripts, and especially of the
most ancient of them, from which the best of our knowledge is
derived. Their fortunes, even in comparatively modern days, have
often been full of interest ; and from their venerable pages we can
spell out something of their history in the distant ages in which
they first saw the light. In this chapter we shall trace the history
of a few of the most important of them, and shall give facsimiles
of their outward appearance ; so that to the reader who studies
the pages of a critical Greek text or the Variorum edition of the
English Bible, ' the symbols ^, A, B, C, B, and the rest which
pervade its notes may be no longer meaningless combinations
of letters, but may stand for separate books which he knows
individually, and whose characteiistics and peculiarities he has
studied.
It has already been stated (p. 101) that Greek manuscripts are
divided into two classes, known, according to the manner of their
writing, as uncials or cursives ; and that of these the uncials are
a,t once the oldest and the most important. The uncials are
known, for the sake of brevity, by the capital letters of the
alphabet, though each of them possesses some special name as
well. We shall now proceed to describe the best of them in
the order of their alphabetical precedence. Some of them we
have met already in our catalogue of the manuscripts of the
Septuagint.
{i(. Codex Sinaiticns ; t]ie last found of all the fiock, yet one of
the most important, and therefore (since the letters of the common
alphabet had been already appropriated for other manuscripts)
designated by its discoverer by the first letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, Aleph. The discovery of this manuscript, fifty-one
122 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
years ago, was the supreme triumph of the great Biblical scholar,
Constantine Tischendorf. In the year 1844 he was travelling in
the East in search of manuscripts, and in the course of his travels
he visited the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. He
was taken into the library, and after surveying the books on the
shelves he noticed a basket containiiig a large number of stray
pages of manuscripts, among which he was astounded to behold
several leaves of the oldest Greek writing he had ever set eyes on,
and, as a short inspection proved, containing parts of the Greek
Bible. No less than forty-three such leaves did he extract, and
the librarian casually observed that two basket loads of similar
waste paper had already been used to light the fires of the
monastery. It is therefore not surprising that he easily obtained
permission to keep the leaves which he had picked up ; but when
he discovered that some eighty more leaves of the Old Testament
from the same mtouscript were also in existence, difficulties were
made about letting him see them ; and he had to content himself
with informing the monks of their value, and entreating them to
light ^their fires with something less precious. He then returned
to Europe, and having presented his treasure to his sovereign. King
Frederic Augustus of Saxony, published its contents under the
name of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus. These forty-three leaves
belonged, like all that Tischendorf had yet seen or heard of, to the
Old Testament, containing portions of 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah,
with Nehemiah and Esther complete ; they are now, as we have
seen (p. 59), at Leipzig, separated from the rest of the volume to
which they once belonged. In 1853 he returned to Sinai ; but
his former warning, and perhaps the interest aroused in Europe
by the discovery, had made the monks cautious, and he could hear
nothing more concerning the manuscript. In 1859 he visited the
monastery once again, this time under the patronage of the Czar
Alexander II., the patron of the Greek Church ; but still his in-
quiries were met with blank negation, until one evening, only a
few days before he was to depart, in the course of conversation
with the steward of the monastery, he showed him a copy of his
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 123
recently published edition of the Septuagint. Thereupon the
steward remarked that he too had a copy of the Septuagint, which
he should like to show to his visitor. Accordingly he took him
to his room, and produced a heap of loose leaves wrapped in a
doth ; and there before the astonished scholar's eyes lay the
identical manuscript for which he had been longing. Not oijy
was part of the Old Testament there, but the New Testament,
complete from beginning to end. Concealing his feelings, he
ac^ed to be allowed to keep it in his room that evening to ex-
amine it ; leave was given, " and that night it seemed sacrilege
to sleep." Then the influence of the Russian Emperor was
brought into play. It was represented to the monks that it would
be a most appropriate step to present the manuscript to the great
protector of their Church. This reasoning, backed by whatever
influence could be brought to bear, was successful ; Tischendorf
first obtained leave to have the manuscript sent after him to
Cairo and copy it there ; next to carry it with him to Russia for
further study ; and finally to lay it as a gift (in return for which
presents were made to the monks by the Russian Grovernment) at
the feet of the Czar at St. Petersburg, in the library of which
capital it has thenceforth remained.
The romance of the Codex Sinaiticus was not yet over, however.
Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine
Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by produc-
ing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous
JOitiquity, — such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of
writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel
on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other
portions of the New Testament dating from the first century.
These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were
then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the
exposure was Tischendorf ; and the revenge taken by Simonides
was distinctly humorous. While stoutly maintaining the genuine-
ness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written one
manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the
124 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
Codex Sinaiticus, the discovery of which had been so trium-
phantly proclaimed by Tischendorf ! The idea was inp^enious, but
it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence
of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever,
could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have
completed the task in the time which he professed to have taken ;
and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manu-
script rapidly passed away.
Plate YIII. gives a general idea of the appearance of this
manuscript. The original size of the page is 15 inches by
13^ inches. There are four narrow columns to each page (the only
known instance of so many), and the eight columns thus presented
to the reader when the volume is opened have much of the appear-
ance of the succession of columns in a papyrus roll ; and it is not
at all impossible that it was actually copied from such a roll.
The vellum is made from the finest skins of antelopes, and is of
excellent quality ; the writing is large, clear, and good, without
any attempt at ornamentation. The MS. originally contained the
whole Greek Bible, but, as has been stated above (p. 59), only a
part of the Old Testament escaped the waste-paper basket of the
Sinai monastery. The New Testament is complete, and at the end
are added two apocryphal works, which for a long time enjoyed
almost equal credit with the New Testament books, but finally
failed to obtain a position in the Canon, namely the Epistle of
Barnabas and the " Shepherd " of Hermas. The original text has
been corrected in many places, the various correctors being indica-
ted in critical editions as K*, N^, N®, etc. The date of the manu-
script is in the fourth century, probably about the middle or end
of it. It can hardly be earlier than a.d. 340, since the divisions
of the text known as the Eusebian sections are indicated in the
margin of the Grospels, in a hand evidently contemporaneous with
the text ; and these sections, which are a device for forming a
sort of Harmony of the Grospels, by showing which sections in each
Gospel have parallel sections in any of the others, were due to the
scholar Ensebius, who died about a.d. 340. On the other hand,
k-
I
i 1
i t
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 125
the character of the writing shows that it can hardly be later than
the fourth century. The oldest corrector, M% is not much later
than the manuscript itself, and must have made his corrections
from a very good and ancient copy. N^ is of the sixth century ;
t<«, a very active corrector, of the seventh ; the others, later and
of small importance.
A study of the facsimile page will show something of the way ir
which manuscripts were written and corrected, besides providing
a specmien of the readings of M in an important passage. The
page contains Luke 22. 20-52, though it has been necessary to
omit eight lines from the top of each column in the plate. In
V, 22 (the first line of the plate), N has " for " (tn) in place of the
received text " and " ; and, as the note in the Variorum Bible
shows, N is supported by B, D, and L among the principal MSS.,
while A heads the mass of later uncials and cursives which
contain the "received" reading. Of the editors. Tiachendorf.
Tregelles, M^Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revised A ersion
follow N, while Lachmann and Weiss are on the other side. In
1. 2 the scribe has accidentally omitted the little word ia^v, and
has added it above the line. At 1. 14, which begins verse 24, will
be seen an example of the usual procedure of N in marking the
beginning of a fresh paragraph by allowing the first letter to pro-
ject into the margin, but without any enlargement. In 1. 15 the
original scribe had written €»? eavrov:, which is found in no other
MS., but it has been corrected to the usual ev avrotq : there is
practically no difference in sense. In 11. 22, 23 (verse 25) there
is a more extensive alteration. The scribe began by writing km oi
apxovreq rav e^ovcnaC^ovcnv avrav Kai tvepyerai KaXowrat (="and their
rulers exercise authority over them and are called benefactors ")>
which makes nonsense ; accordingly he (or a corrector) has can-
celled the erroneous letters apxovT€<; ruv by putting dots above them
(a common method in Greek MSS.), has altered the verb into
a participle by writing the letters vreq over the erroneous t/<r»y, and
has cancelled Kai (" and ") by dots above each letter, thus restor-
ing the text to its proper form. In v. 31 (col. 2, 1. 7) there is a
126 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPT8.
disputed reading, some authorities having the words "And the Lord
said," as in our Authorised Version, while others omit them. The
evidence is evenly balanced. Not only A and the mass of later
MSS., but also K, as our plate shows, and D give the disputed
words (fiircv le o Kvpioq), while B and L, with the two chief Coptic
versions, omit them. Lachmann, Tregelles, and M^Clellan retain
the words (see the Variorum note); Alford, Tischendorf, and
Westcott and Hort reject them ; and the Revisers have followed
the latter, though the division of the best evidence must have
made a decision difficult, K and D being a fair set-oflF against
B and L, even if the " Syrian " MSS. be disregarded.
Small alterations in the MSS. must be passed over briefly ; they
will be seen in col. 2, 1. 37 ; col. 3, 11. 5, 6 ; col. 4, 1. 36. The
reader may also note the common practice of writing the last
letters of a line very small, so as to get more into a line. But in
verses 48, 44, a very important textual question arises. These
verses contain the mention of the Bloody Sweat, and of the Angel
who appeared to strengthen our Lord in His agony, — an incident,
it is hardly necessary to say, of the deepest interest and value.
Now these verses are omitted by the two great manuscripts A and
B (so seldom found on the same side that their agreement is the
more striking), and also by R and T, the valuable cursives 13 and
69, some MSS. of the Bohairic and Sahidic versions, and by some
of the Fathers. Against these there were, before the discovery of
X, to be set only B and L among the better uncials, the Old Latin
and Vulgate, the Peshitto Syriac, other MSS. of the Coptic versions,
many Fathers, and the mass of later MSS. The better authorities
might fairly be said to be against the genuineness of the verses ;
and it is consequently very satisfactory to find them contained in
the two newly discovered witnesses, X and the Curetonian Syriac.*
They will be seen in the last ten lines of col. 3 on our plate. The
reader who looks closely at it, however, will see that a faint row of
dots has been placed above the first line of the passage, and equally
faint hooks or commas at the beginning and end of each of these
♦ The latest discovery, however, the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac, omits them.
THE MANUSCBIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127
lines. This shows that some corrector did jiot find the verses in
the copy with which he was comparing the MS* and accordingly
marked them as doubtful. Tischendorf believed the marks to be
due to the first corrector of the MS., who certainly used a good
and ancient copy, and accordingly in the Variorum note we find ^{■
enumerated among the authorities against the verses; but it is
obviously difl&cult to be sure to what hand such simple marks are
to be attributed. It is clear that the verses were absent from some
very eariy copies ; but it is also clear that some equally eariy ones
contained them ; and the majority of editors have shown a wise
discretion in preferring the evidence in favour of their authenticity.
Our analysis of this single page of the Codex Sinaiticus will
have shown the reader something of the task of the textual critic,
and something of the variations which he meets in every MS., —
some of them being mere slips of the pen on the part of the scribe,
while others testify to a real peculiarity of reading in the MS.
from which this was copied. It remains to say something as to
the general character of this ancient authority, and of the rank
which critics assign it among the array of witnesses to the text of
the New Testament.
Besides being one of the most ancient, the Codex Sinaiticus is
also one of the most valuable texts of the New Testament. In
many passages it is found in company with B, preserving obviously
superior readings where the great mass of later manuscripts is in
error. According to the analysis of Westcott and Hort, its text is
almost entirely pre-Syrian ; but it is not equally free from Western
and Alexandrian elements. Especially in the Gospels, readings
from these two sources are not unfrequent, Western readings being
most prominent in St. John and in parts of St. Luke. One most
noticeable case in which this manuscript is found in agreement
with B is in the omission of the last twelve verses of St. Mark, in
which {< and B stand alone against all the other extant manu-
scripts (with the partial exception of L), though with some impor-
tant support from three versions and some of the Fathers. With
respect to the agreement of X and B one curious fact should,
128 OUR BIBLE AND fRh ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
I
however, be noticed ; namely, that several pages of X are actoaJly
written by the scribe who wiote^B. This fact, which is admitted
fey competent scholars who have had the opportunity of judging,
indicates some amount of community of origin ; but it is at the
same time evident that both were not copied from the same
original, so tnau une mdepenaence of their testimony is not
seriously impaired. The most that we learn is that both were
probably written in the same country. What that country was is
extremely doubtful. Dr. Hort is "inclined to surmise," from
certain very slight indications of orthography, that they were
written in the West, probably at Rome ; and that the ancestors of
B were also written in the West, while those of i< were written in
Alexandria. On the other hand, forms of letters are occasionally
found in B which are believed to be exclusively Egyptian ; and
the writing of {< bears a quite discernible resemblance to a hand
which is found (at a considerably earlier date) in papyri from
Egypt. Another eminent scholar, Prof. Rendel Harris, believes
that both manuscripts came from the library of Pamphilus at
Caesarea, of which Eusebius made use ; but this would not
necessarily be inconsistent with their having been written in
Egvpt. On the whole, however, this is one of the cases where the
only fair course is to admit ignorance, and to hope that future
discoveries may in time bring fuller knowledge.
A. Codex Alexandrinus. — This is one of the chief treasures of
the British Museum, where the volume containing the New Testa-
ment may be seen by every visitor in one of the show-cases in the
Department of Manuscripts. Its history, at least in later years, is
much less obscure than that of the Sinaiticus. In 1624 it was
offered by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Sir Thomas
Roe, our ambassador in Turkey, for presentation to King James I.
King James died before the manuscript started for England, and
the offer was transferred to Charles 1. In 1627 the gift was
actually accomplished, and the MS. remained in the possession of
our sovereigns until the Royal Library was presented to the nation
by George II., when it entered its present home. Its earlier
THE MANU8GBIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129
history is also partially traceable. Cyril Lucar brought it to
Constantinople from Alexandria, of which see he had previously
been Patriarch ; and an Arabic note at the beginning of the MS.,
signed by " Athanasius the humble" (probably Athanasius III.,
Patriarch of Alexandria, who died about 1308), states that it was a
gift to the Patriarchal cell in that town. A later Latin note adds
that the gift was made in a.d. 1098, but the authority for this
statement is unknown. Another Arabic note, written in the
thirteenth or fourteenth century, states that the MS. was written
by Thecla the martyr ; and Cyril Lucar himself repeats this state-
ment, with the additions that Thecla was a noble lady of Egypt,
that she wrote it shortly after the Council of Nicaea (a.d. 325), and
that her name was originally written at the end of the manuscript.
This, however, was only tradition, since the end of the MS. had
been lost long before Cyril's time. The authority for the tradition
is quite unknown, and so early a date is hardly probable. The
occurrence in the manuscript of treatises (see p. 60) by Eusebius (died
A.D. 340) and Athanasius (died a.d. 376) makes it almost certain
that it cannot be earlier than the middle of the fourth century-,
and competent authorities agree that the style of writing probably
shows it to be somewhat later, in the first half of the fifth century.
It is certain that the writing of this MS. appears to be somewhat
more advanced than that of the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, especially
in the enlargement of initial letters and similar elementary orna-
mentation ; but it must be remembered that these characteristics
are already found in earlier MSS., and that similar differences
between contemporary MSS. may be found at all periods. The
dating of early Greek uncials on vellum is still very doubtful for
want of materials to judge from, and it is possible that the tradi-
tion mentioned above is truer than is generally supposed ; but for
the present it is safer to acquiesce in the general judgment which
assigns the manuscript to the fifth century.
Like the Codex Sinaiticus, it contained originally the whole
Greek Bible, with the addition of the two Epistles of Clement of
Borne, which in very early days ranked atoost with the inspired
S2764. I
180 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
books ; and, in addition, the table of contents shows that it
originally included the Psalms of Solomon, the title of which,
however, is so separated from the rest of the books as to indicate
that they were regarded as standing on a different footing.
The Old Testament has suffered some slight mutilations, which
have been described already ; the New Testament more seriously,
since the whole of St. Matthew's Gospel, as far as ch. 26. 6, is lost,
together with leaves containing John 6. 60 — 8. 62 (where, however,
the number of pages missing shows that the doubtful passage,
7. 63 — 8. 11, cannot have been present when the MS. was perfect),
and 2 Cor. 4. 13 — 12. 6, one leaf of the first Epistle of Clement
and the greater part of the second. The leaves measure 12| inches
by lOj, having two columns to each page, written in a large and
well-formed hand of round shape, with initial letters enlarged
and projecting into the margin. The text has been corrected
throughout by several different hands, the first being nearly or
quite contemporary with the original scribe. The facsimile given
in Plate IX. shows the upper part of the page containing John
4. 42 — 6. 14. In col. 1, 1. 6, it will be seen that this MS. contains
the words " the Christ " ; and a reference to the Variorum Bible
foot-note shows that it is supported by C {Le, the third corrector
of C), D, L (with the later MSS.), while K, B, C (with the Old
Latin, Vulgate, Bohairic, and Curetonian Syriac versions) omit
the words, and are followed by all the editors except M^^Clellan.
Though D and L represent pre-Syrian testimony, the balance of
that testimony, as contained in K, B, and the versions, overweighs
them.
More important readings will be seen in the second column,
which contains the story of the cure of the impotent man at the
pool of Bethesda. It will be seen (11. 13, 14) that an alteration has
been made in the MS., and that certain letters have been re-written
over an erasure, while others are added in the margin. The
words which are thus due to the corrector, and not to the original
scribe, are those which are translated " halt, withered, waiting for
the moving of the water. For an angel of the Lord." A close
r^
Li;
U -;•:=;,!*!.■
uMiMl-Um-M
-I..
-!>■■
155
i fills
5P
55:
its
?:5
m'i-i-'i>>')
t^li
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 181
examination shows that the first and last parts of the passage origi-
nally occupied 1. 14, before the erasure ; but the words in italics are
an addition which was not in the original text. They are also
omitted {see the Variorum Bible foot-note) by N, B, C, L, with
the Curetonian Syriac and the Sahidic versions. They are found
only in D, the corrections of A and C, and later MSS., and are
thus inevitably omitted by nearly all the editors. With regard
to verse 4 the distribution of evidence is different. It is omitted,
like the former words, by {<, B, C, the Curetonian Syriac, most
MSS. of the Bohairic and the Sahidic versions ; and these are now
joined by D, which in the previous case was on the other side.
On the other hand, A and L have changed in the contrary direc-
tion, and are found to support the verse, in company with C, the
later uncials, and all cursives but three, the Old Latin and Vul-
gate, and the Peshitto Syriac. Thus the versions are fairly equally
divided ; but X, B, C, D form a very strong group of early
auth^ity, aa against A and the mass of later MSS. L and the Old
Latin are, in fact, the only witnesses to the verse which can be
considered as pre -Syrian, and consequently we find the Revised
Version omits the verse, in common with Tischendorf, Tregelles,
and Westcott and Hort ; Lachmann and M«Clellan alone appearing
on the other side.
Specimens of scribes' errors and their corrections may be seen in
11. 1, 2, 26-28. In the former the words first written have been
erased, and the correct reading written above them ; in the latter,
some words had been written twice over by mistake (Xey€« a\n»
6eXc<( vyivii yeyea-dat Xeyei avra BeKei^ ^^yji y€V€<rdat aveKptBrj avrei).
The whole passage (from the first yeifsa-Beu) has been erasied,
and then correctly re-written, with a slight variation (Xeye* for
amocffiBfi) ; but as the correct reading was much shorter than
that originally written, a considerable space is left blank, as the
facsimile shows.
As regards the quality of the text preserved in the Codex
Al^xandnnus, it must be admitted that it does not stand quite so
high as its two predecessors in age, {< and B. Different parts of
I 2
132 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
the New Testament have evidently been copied from different
originals ; but in the Gospels, at any rate, A is the oldest and most
pre-eminent example of that revised "Syrian" text which (to
judge from the quotations in the Fathers) had become the
predominant text as early as the fourth century. It will often
be found at the head of the great mass of later uncials and
cursives which support the received text ; and although it is
much superior to the late cursives from which the " received text"
was in fact derived, it yet belongs to. the same class, and will be
found oftener in agreement with the Authorised Version than with
the Revised. In the Acts and Epistles its text is predominantly
Alexandrian, with some Western readings ; in the Apocalypse it
belongs to the Neutral type, and is probably the best extant MS. of
that book. The Epistles of Clement, which are very valuable for
the history of the early Church, having been written about the end
of the first century, were until quite recently not known to exist in
any other manuscript. The Eusebian sections and canons, referred
to above (p. 124), are indicated in the margins of the Gospels,
which also exhibit the earliest example of a division into chapters.
A similar division of the Acts and Epistles, ascribed to EuthaUus of
Alexandria, who wrote about a.d. 458, is not found in this manu-
script ; and this is an additional reason for believing it not to have
been written later than the middle of the fifth century.
The Codex Alexandrinus was the first of the greater manuscripts
to be made accessible to scholars. The Epistles of Clement were
published from it by Patrick Young in 1633, the Old Testament
by Grabe in 1707-1720, and the New Testament by Woide in
1786. In 1816-28 the Rev. H. H. Baber published the Old
Testament in type resembling as closely as possible the writing
of the original. Finally a photographic reproduction of the
whole MS. was published in 1879-1883, under the editorship of
Mr. (now Sir) E. Maunde Thompson, the present Principal
Librarian of the British Museum.
B. Codex Vaticanus, the most ancient and most valuable of all
the manuscripts of the Greek Bible. As its name shows, it is in
THE MANU8CB1PT8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 138
the great Vatican Library at Rome, which has been its home
siAce about the year_145Q (certainly before 1475). There is,
therefore, no story to tell of the discovery of this MS. ; the interest
which attaches to its history is of a different kind, and relates to
the long struggle that was necessary before its contents were made
accessible to scholars. For some reason which does not clearly
appear, and which it is difl&cult to represent as very creditable to
the heads of the Roman Church, the authorities of the Vatican
Library put continual obstacles in the way of all who wished to
study it in detail. A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that
scholar a number of selected readings from it, as proof of its
superiority to the received Greek text. In 1669 a collation (or
statement of its various readings) was made by Bartolocci, but it
was never published, and remained unknown until 1819. Other
imperfect collations were made about 1720 and 1780. Napoleon
carried the manuscript off as a prize of victory to Paris, where it
remained till 1815, when the many treasures of which he had
despoiled the libraries of the Continent were returned to their
respective owners. While at Paris it was studied by Hug, and its
great age and supreme importance were first fully made known-;
but after its return to Rome a period of seclusion set in. In 1843
Tischendorf , after waiting for several months, was allowed to see it
for six hours. Next year De Muralt was perm itted to stiidy it for
nine hours. In 1845 the great English scholar Tregelles was allowed
indeed to see it but not to copy a word. His pockets were searched
before he might open it, and all writing materials were taken
away. Two clerics stood beside him and snatched away the
volume if he looked too long at any passage I However, the
Roman authorities now took the task in hand themselves, and in
1857 an edition by Cardinal Mai was published, which, however,
was so inaccurate as to be almost useless. In 1866 Tischendorf
once more applied for leave to edit the MS., but with difficulty
obtained leave to examine it for the purpose of collating diflBcult
passages. Unfortunately the great scholar so far forgot himself as
to copy out twenty pages in full, contrary to the conditions under
184 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
which he had been allowed access to the MS., and his permission
was naturally withdrawn. Renewed entreaty procured him six days
longer study, making in all fourteen days of three hours each ; and
by making the very most of his time Tischendorf was able in 1867
to publish the most perfect edition of the manuscript which had
yet appeared. An improved Roman edition appeared in 1868-81 ;
but; the final and decisive publication was reserved for the years
1889-90, when a complete photographic facsimile of the whole
MS. made its contents once and for all the common property of all
scholars.
The Codex Vaticanus originally contained the entire Greek
Bible, but it has suflFered not a little from the ravages of time.
The beginning has been lost, as far as Gen. 46. 28 ; in the middle,
Psalms 106-138 have dropped out ; at the end, the latter part of
Hebrews (from Chap. 9. 4), the Catholic Epistles, and the whole of
the Apocalypse ha»ve disappeared.* Each page measures IQ^ by
10 inches. The vellum is beautifully fine, and is said to be made
from antelopes' skins. The writing {see Plate X.) is in small and
delicate uncials, perfectly simple and unadorned, with three
columns to the page. There are no enlarged initials, no stops or
accents, no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in
later MSS., but a different system of division peculiar to this
manuscript. Unfortunately, the beauty of the original writing
has been spoilt by a later corrector, who, thinking perhaps that the
original ink was becoming faint, traced over every letter afresh,
omitting only those letters and words which he believed to be
incorrect. Thus it is only in the case of such words that we see
the original writing untouched and uninjured. An example may
be seen in the thirteenth and fourteenth lines from the bottom
* The Codex Vaticanus being deficient in the Apocalypse, the letter B is in
the case of that book transferred to another MS. also in the Vatican, but much
later in date, being of the eighth century. It is of some importance, as uncial
MSS. of the Apocalypse are scarce ; but it must be remembered that its autho-
rity is by no means equal to that of the great manuscript to which the letter
B is elsewhere appropriated.
THE MANVSGBIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 185
of the third column in our plate, where the corrector has not
retouched the words Kaya averrctXa avrovq 6^ roy Kfta-fMv^ which have
been written twice over by mistake. One scribe wrote the whole
of the MS., and was also, as we have seen, employed on part of
the Codex Sinaiticus. There are corrections by various hands, one
of ^them (indicated as- ^) being ancient ^nd valuable. With
p^ard to the date of the manuscript, critics are agreed in assign-
ing it to the fourth century ; and the identity of scribe between it
and part of {< shows that they are practically contemporary, though
the more complete absence of ornamentation from B has generally
caused it to be regarded as slightly the older.
Over the character of the text contained in B a most embittered
controversy has raged. It will have been noticed that it is only
within quite recent years that {< and B have emerged from their
obscurity and have become generally known ; and it so happens
that these two most ancient manuscripts differ markedly from the
class of text represented by A, which up to the time of their
appearance was held to be the oldest and best authority in
existence. Hence there has been a natural reluctance to abandon
the ancient readings at the bidding of these two new-comers,
imposing though their appearance may be ; and this is especially
the case since the publication of Ur. Hort's theory, which assigns
to these two manuscripts, and especially to B, a pre-eminence which
is almost overwhelming. Dean Burgon tilted desperately against
the text of Westcott and Hort, and even went so far as to argue
that these two documents owed their preservation, not to the
goodness of their text, but to its depravity, having been, so to
speak, pilloried as examples of what a copy of the Scripture ought
not to be ! In spite of the learning with which the Dean main-
tained his arguments, and of the support which equally eminent
but more moderate scholars such as Dr. Scrivener gave to his
conclusions, they have failed to hold their ground. Scholars in
general believe B to be the chief evidence for the most ancient
form of the New Testament text, and it is clear that the Revisers
of our English Bible attached the greatest weight to its authority.
186 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
Even where it stands alone, or almost alone, its evidence must be
treated with respect ; and such readings not unfrequently find a
place in the margin of the Revised Version. One notable instance,
the omission of the last twelve verses of St. Mark, has been meii-
tioned in speaking of the Codex Sinaiticus ; others will be found
recorded in the notes to the Variorum Bible, or in any critical
edition of the Grreek New Testament.
The page exhibited in our facsimile contains John 16. 27 —
17. 21. Six lines have been omitted from the top of the plate.
It was chosen especially as showing a good example of the
untouched writing of the MS., as described above ; but it also
contains several interesting readings. In 16. 27 it has "the
Father " instead of " God " ; and the note in the Variorum Bible
informs us that B is here supported by the original text of C, and
by D and L. On the other hand, it is opposed by the original
text of {< (both j( and C have been altered by later correctors),
and by A and A. Most of the later MSS. follow the latter group ;
the versions and Fathers are divided. The evidence is thus very
evenly divided, and so, consequently, are the editors ; Tischendorf,
M<*Clellan, and Weiss retaining the " received " reading, " God,"
while Lachmann, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort follow B. The
Eevisers have done .the same, being probably influenced by the
fact that the evidence in support of the word "Father" comes
from more than one group of authorities, B and L being Neutral,
D Western, and C mixed, while the Coptic versions, which also
support it, are Alexandrian. This is a good instance of an evenly
balanced choice of readings. In 16. 33 the received reading
" shall have " is supported only by B and the Latin versions, while
{< A, B, C, and nearly all the other uncials and versions read
" have " ; so that practically all editors adopt the latter reading.
In 17. 11 another instance occurs of an overwhelming majority
in favour of a change, the received reading being supported only
by a correction in D and by the Vulgate, while ji{. A, B, C, L, and
all editors read " keep them in thy name which thou hast given
me." In the next verse, K, B, C, B, L (all the best MSS. except A,
i I
IHE MANU80SIPT8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137
and most of the vereionB) omit the words " in the world," which
are found in A and the mass of cnrsives. Of the editors, only
M®Clellan, preferring what he regards as internal probability to
external evidence, retains the "received " reading. In the words
which follow, a more complicated difference of opinion exists, for
which reference may be made to the Variorum Bible note. One
reading is supported by A and D ; another by J<« (the third corrector
of ^) and the two chief Coptic versions ; a third by B, C, and L.
Of the editors, Lachmann adopts the first reading, M^Clellan the
second, and the others, including the Eevisers, the third. None
of the variations here mentioned as occurring on this page of B
is of first-rate importance, but they furnish a fair example of the
sort of problems with which the textual critic has to deal, and of
the conflicting evidence of M88. and the divergent opinions of
editors. Finally, in 2;. 15 (col. 3, 11. 19, 20 in the plate) there
is a good example of a class of error to which, as mentioned above
(p. 6), scribes were especially liable. The words to be copied
were " I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world,
but that thou shouldest keep them out of the evil " ; but when
the scribe had written the first "out of the," his eye wandered
on to the second occurrence of these words, and he proceeded to
write " evil " instead of " world," thus omitting several words,
and producing nonsense. The correction of the blunder has
involved the cancelling of some words in 1. 20 and the writing
of others in the margin. Sometimes the omission of words in
this way does not produce obvious nonsense, and then the error
may escape notice and be perpetuated by being copied into other
manuscripts.
C. Codex Ephraemi, now in the National Library of Paris,
having been brought from the East to Italy early in the sixteenth
century, and taken from Italy to Paris by Queen Catherine de'
Medici. This manuscript is a prominent instance of a fate which
befell many ancient books in the Middle Ages, before the introduc-
tion of paper into Europe. When vellum became scarce, a scribe
who was unable to procure a sufficiency of. it was apt to take some
138 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
III" - ■■ - ■ _■■—-.. — ■■ ' ■ ■■ ■ - ^ . - ■— - ^
mannscript to which he attached little value, wash or scrape off the
ink as well as he could, and then write his book on the vellum thus
partially cleaned. Manuscripts so treated are called palimpsestSj
from a Greek word implying the removal of the original writing.
The Codex Ephraemi is a palimpsest, and derives its name from
tj^e fgct that the later writing inscribed upon its vellum (probably
in the twelfth century) consists of the works of St. Ephraem of
Syria. Naturally to us the earlier writing in such a case is almost
always the more valuable, as it certainly is in this case ; but it
requires much labour and ingenuity, and often the application of
chemicals, in order to discern the faded traces of the original ink.
Attention was first called to the Biblical text underlying the works
of St. Ephraem at the end of the seventeenth century. In 1716 a
collation of the New Testament was made, at the instance of the
great Euglish scholar Eichard Bentley; but the first complete
edition of it was due to the zeal and industry of Tischendorf, who
published all that was decipherable, both of the Old and of the
New Testament, in 1843-5.
The original manuscript contained the whole Greek Bible, but
only scattered leaves of it were used by the scribe of St. Ephraem's
works, and the rest was probably destroyed. Only 64 leaves
are left of the Old Testament ; of the New Testament there are
145 (out of 238), containing portions of every book except 2 Thes-
salonians and 2 John. It is written in a medium-sized uncial
hand, in pages measuring 12J inches by 9^ inches, and with only
one column to the page. The Eusebian sections and the division
into chapters appear in the Gospels, but there are no traces of
divisions in the other books. The writing is generally agreed to
be of the fifth century, perhaps a little later than the Codex
Alexandrinus ; and two correctors have left their mark upon the
text, the first in the sixth century, and the other in the ninth.
Of course it will be understood, in reference to other manuscripts
BR well as this, that the readings of an early corrector may be as
valuable as those of the manuscript itself, since they must have
been taken from other copies then in existence.
Codex Emirabui — 5tii Cent.
(Original >iie if page, 12titt.x 9i i«-'; qfparl i-cpcorfucerf. 7t ij
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189
The great age of C makes it extremely valuable for the textual
criticism of the New Testament ; but it is less important than
those which we have hitherto described, owing to the fact that it
represents no one family of text, but is rather compounded from
them all. Its scribe, or the scribe of one of its immediate an-
cestors, must have had before him manuscripts representing all the
different families which have been described above. Sometimes it
agrees with the Neutral group of manuscripts, sometimes with the
Western, not unfrequently with the Alexandrian, and perhaps
oftenest with the Syrian. The page exhibited in Plate XI. con-
tains Matt. 20. 16-34 (eight lines being omitted from the bottom
of the page), and a reference to the notes in the Variorum Bible
will show that its readings here are of some interest. In v. 16
it is the chief authority for the words, "for many be called
but few chosen " ; in this case it is supported by D, but opposed
by K and B, which omit the sentence (A is defective here).
Similarly in verses 22 and 23 the words, " and to be baptized with
the baptism that I am baptized with," are found in C, E, and a
multitude of later uncials and cursives, but are omitted by X, B,
D, L, Z, and most of the versions. In all these cases the Revised
Version sides with M and B against C, and there can be little
doubt that the Eevisers are right, and that these readings of C
are due to the habit (very common in the Syrian type of text) of
introducing into the narrative of one Evangelist words and clauses
which occur in the description of the same or similar events in
the others.
D. Codex Bezae ; ' in the University Library at Cambridge.
This is undoubtedly the most curious, though certainly not the
most Itrustworthy, manuscript of the New Testament at present
known to us. It was probably written in the south of France,
perhaps at Lyons. It was at Lyons in the year 1562, when
Theodore Beza, the disciple of Calvin and editor of the New
Testament (see p. 99), procured it, probably after the', sack of the
city by the Huguenots in that year ; and by Beza, from whom it
derives its name, it was presented in 1581 to the University of
140 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
Cambridge. It is remarkable as the first example of a copy of
the Bible in two languages; for it contains both Greek and
Latin texts. It is also remarkable, as will be shown directly, on
account of the many curious additions to and variations from the
authentic text which it contains; and no manuscript has been
the subject of so many speculations or the basis of so many con-
flicting theories. It was partially used by Stephanus in his
edition of 1550 and by Beza in his various editions. After its
acquisition by Cambridge it was collated, more or less imperfectly,
by various scholars in the 17th and 18th centuries, and published
in full by Kipling in 1793. A new edition, with full annotations,
was issued by Dr. Scrivener in 1864 ; and since that date two
other Cambridge scholars, Professor Rendel Harris and Mr. Chase,
have made careful studies of its text from rather different points
of view.
In size the Codex Bezae is smaller than the manuscripts hitherto
described, its pages measuring ten inches by eight. The Greek
and Latin texts face one another on opposite pages, the Greek
being on the left hand, the Latin on the right. Each page 'con-
tains a single column, not written continuously, as in the MSS.
hitherto described, but in lines of varying length, the object
(imperfectly attained, it is true) being to make the pauses of sense
come at the end of a line. It is written in uncials of rather large
size, the Latin and Greek characters being made curiously alike,
so that both pages have a similar general appearance at first
sight. The writing is evidently in a style later than that of
A or C, and it may be assigned with fair confidence to the sixth
century. The manuscript has been corrected by many hands,
including the original scribe himself ; some of the correctors
are nearly contemporary with the original writing, others are
much later.
The existence of a Latin text is sufiicient proof by itself that
the manuscript was written in the West of Europe, where Latin
was the language of literature and daily life. In the East there
would be no occasion for a Latin translation ; but in the West
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141
Latin was the language which would be the most generally intel-
ligible, while the Greek was added because it was the original
language of the sacred books. But Latin copies of the Scriptures
existed long before this manuscript was written ; and then the
qnestion arises, whether the scribe has simply copied a Greek
manuscript for his Greek pages and a Latin manuscript for his
Latin, or whether he has taken pains to make the two versions
correspond and represent the same readings of the original. On
this point a rather curious division of opinion has arisen. It i&
tolerably clear that in the first instance independent Greek and
Latin texts were used as the authorities to be copied, but it is
also clear that the texts have been to some extent assimilated to
one another ; and while Dr. Scrivener (and most scholars until
recently) argues that the Latin has been altered to suit the Greek
(and therefore ceases to be very valuable evidence for the text of
the Old Latin version). Professor Eendel Harris maintains that
the Greek has been altered to suit the Latin, and that therefore it
is the Greek that is comparatively unimportant as evidence for
the original Greek text. Striking evidence can be produced on
both sides ; so that there seems to be nothing left but to conclude
that bo^ texts have been modified, which is in itself not an un-
reasonable conclusion. The general result is that the evidence
of D, whether for the Greek or Latin texts, must be used with
some caution ; and care must be taken to make sure that any
apparent variation is Dot due to some modification introduced by
the scribe.
But the special interest, of Codex Bezae is not to be found so
much in verbal variations as in wider departures from the normal
text, in which there is no question of mere accommodations of
language, but which can only be due to a different tradition.
Codex Bezae, unlike the MSS. hitherto described, which are copies
of the entire Bible, contains only the Gospels and Acts, with a few
verses of the Catholic Epistles, which originally preceded the
Acts; but in these portions of the New Testament it. exhibits a
very remarkable series of variations from the usual text. It is the
142 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
chief representative of the Western type of text, which, formerly
supposed to have originated in the West, is now shown to have
come into existence in Syria or Asia Minor, at a very early date
indeed, probably near the beginning of the second century. The
Church in Gaul (ue, France) was closely connected with the Church
of Asia Minor, from which it had been founded ; and it may
have been in this way that this type of text passed from the East
(where it left its mark in the Old Syriac version) to the West,
where it became the predominant form in the early ages of the
Church. Its special characteristic, as explained above (p. 110),
is the free addition, and occasionally omission, of words, sentences,
and even incidents. One of these will be found in the page of
the MS. reproduced in our Plate XII., containing Luke 6. 38
— 6. 9. The first word on the page shows that this manuscript
contains the last words of verse 38, " and both are preserved,"
which are omitted by N, B, and L, and after them by Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, and the Revised Version ; while A, C, and
the mass of later MSS. agree with D, and are followed by
Lachmann, Tregelles, and M^Clellan. Verse 39 is omitted
altogether, both by D and by the Old Latin version (see note
in Variorum Bible). At the end of 6. 9 the words ot he i<ri^w
(" but they were silent ") are added by D alone ; and in place of
verse 5, D alone inserts the following curious passage (11. 16-20 in
the plate) : " On the same day, seeing one working on the sabbath
day, he said unto him, Man, if thou knowest what thou doest,
blessed art thou ; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and
a transgressor of the law." This striking incident, which is con-
tained in no other manuscript or version, cannot be held to be
part of the original text of St. Luke ; but it may well be that
it is a genuine tradition, one of the " many other things which
Jesus did" which were not written in the Gospels. If this be so,
one would forgive all the liberties taken by this manuscript with
the sacred text, for the sake of this addition to the recorded words
of the Lord.
It will be of interest to note some of the principal additions and
PLATE XII.
i i
g_Piyijiip?iHpjHtiy|jy
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 143
omissions found elsewhere in this remarkable manuscript. After
Matt. 20. 28, D is the principal authorify (being suppoited by one
uncial, *, the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, and a few copies
of the Vulgate) for inserting another long passage : " But seek ye
to increase from that which is small, and to become less from that
which is greater. When ye enter into a house and are summoned
to dine, sit not down in the highest places, lest perchance a more
honourable man than thou shall come in afterwards, and he that
bade thee come and say to thee. Go down lower; and thou shalt be
ashamed. But if thou sittest down in the worse place, and one
worse than thee come in afterwards, then he that bade thee will
say to thee, Go up higher ; and this shall be advantageous for thee."
Matt. 21. 44 ("and whosoever shall fall on this stone," etc,) is
omitted by D, one cursive (33), and the best copies of the Old
Latin. In Luke 10. 42, D and the Old Latin omit the words, " one
thing is needful, and." In Luke 22. 19, 20 the same authorities
and the Old Syriac omit the second mention of the cup in the in-
stitution of the Sacrament of the Loin's Supper, thus reversing the
order of administration of the elements. Li Luke 24. 6, D and the
Old Latin omit the words " He is not here, but is risen" ; they omit
the whole of v. 12, with Peter's entry into the sepulchre ; they
omit in v. 36 " and saith unto them. Peace be unto you " ; the
whole of V. 40, " And when he had thus spoken, he showed them
his hands and his feet" ; in v. 51 the words "and was carried up
into heaven " ; and in v. 52 the words " worshipped him and."
Li John 4. 9 the same authorities omit " for the Jews have no
dealings with the Samaritans"; this time with the support of ^{.
In Acts 16. 20 D omits "and from things strangled," and adds
at the end of the verse " and that they should not do to others
what they would not haf e done to themselves." In the narrative
of St. Paul's missionary journeys in Asia, this manuscript and its
allies have so many variations as to have suggested the idea that
they represent a separate edition of the Acts, equally authentic
but different in date ; or else that they (or rather the source from
which they are descended) embody touches of local detail added by
144 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
a scribe who must have been a resident in the country and
acquainted with the local traditions. Little changes of phrase,
which the greatest living authority on the history and geography
of Asia Minor declares to be more true and vivid than the ordinary
text, are added to the narratives of St. Paul's visits to Lycaonia
and Ephesus. Thus in ch. 19. 9, D adds the detail that St. Paul
preached daily in the school of Tyrannus " from the fifth hour to
the tenth." In ch. 19. 1 the text runs thus, quite diflFerently from
the verse which stands in our Bibles : " Now when Paul desired in
his own mind to journey to Jerusalem, the Spirit spake unto him
that he should turn back to Ephesus ; and passing through the
upper parts he cometh to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples he
said unto them." And when the evidence of D comes to an end,
as it does at 22. 29, the other authorities usually associated with
it continue to record a text diflFering equally remarkably from
that which is recorded in the vast majority of manuscripts and
versions.
The instances which have been given are sufficient to show at
once the interest and the freedom characteristic of the Western
text, of which the Codex Bezae is the chief representative. It is
not, however, to be supposed that it is always so striking and so
independent. In many cases it is found in agreement with the
Neutral text of B and M, when it no doubt represents the authentic
words of the original. But space will not allow us to dwell too
long on any single manuscript, however interesting, and further
information as to its readings can always be found by a study of
any critical edition or of the notes to the Variorum Bible.
Dj. Codex Claromontanxis ; in the National Library at Paris
(Plate XIII.). It has been said that the Codex Bezae contains
only the Gospels and Acts ; and consequently when we come to
the Pauline Epistles the letter D is given to another manuscript,
which contains only this part of the New Testament. Like the
Codex Bezae it formerly belonged to Beza, having been found at
Clermont (whence its name), in France, and in 1656 it was
bought for the Royal Library. Like the Codex Bezae, again, it
hmmlumiUi^i
■ 111 p>lli fill
■b f ; s i ? r :i r 5"^ * ^ i £ t i r-i ^"^^ a i
II
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145
. - I . —
contains both Greek and Latin texts, written on opposite pages.
Each leaf measures 9f inches by 7f inches, with very wide
margins. It is written on beautifully tine vellam, in a very
handsome style of writing, and (still like D of the Gospels) it
is arranged in lines of irregular length, corresponding to the
pauses in the sense. It is generally assigned to the sixth century,
and was probably written in Africa, perhaps in Egypt. The
Greek text is correctly written, the Latin has many blunders,
and is more independent of the Greek than is the case in Codex
Bezae, belonging to the African type of the Old Latin version.
It has been corrected by no less than nine different hands, the
fourth of which (about the ninth century) added the breathings
and accents, as they appear in the plate. The page shown con-
tains Eom. 7. 4-7. In verse 6 it has a reading different from
that usually found : " But now we have been discharged from
the law of death, wherein we were holden." The text of this
Codex is distinctly Western, as might be expected from its
containing a Latin version ; but Western readings in the Epistles
are not so striking as we have sesn them to be in the Gospels
and Acts.
The remaining uncial manuscripts of the New Testament may,
and indeed must, be described more briefly ; but as they are
sometimes referred to in the Variorum Bible, and of course oftener
in critical editions of the Greek, a short notice of them seems to
be necessary.
E of the Gospels (Codex Basiliensis) is an eighth century copy
of the four Gospels, at Basle, in Switzerland, containing a good
representation of the Syrian type of text, so that it will often be
found siding with A.
E of the Acts (E2), the Codex Laudianus, is much more valu-
able, and is the most important Biblical MS. in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford. It is a manuscript of the sixth century,
containing both Latin and Greek texts, the Latin being on the
left and the Greek on the right (unlike D and D2). It is written
in large rough uncials, in lines of varying length, but containing
S 2761. K
U6 0^77? BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
•
only one to three words each. Its text is Western, with a large
admixture of Alexandrian readings. The history of this volume is
interesting. An inscription contained in it shows that it was in
Sardinia at some time in the seventh century. It was brought to
England probably by Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, in 668. It was probably deposited by him in one of the
great monasteries in the north of England, for it is practically
certain that it was used by Bede in writing his commentary on the
Acts. At the dissolution of the monasteries it must have been
turned loose on the world, like so many other treasures of inestim-
able value ; but ultimately it came into the hands of Archbishop
Laud, and was included by him, in 1636, in one of his splendid
gifts to the University of Oxford.
E of the Pauline Epistles (E3) is merely a copy of D2, made at
the end of the ninth century, when the text of D2 had already
suifered damage from correctors. Hence it is of no independent
value.
Of the remaining manuscripts we shall notice only those which
have some special value or interest. Many of them consist of
fragments only, and their texts are for the most part less valu-
able. Most of them contain texts of the Syrian type, and are of
no more importance than the great mass of cursives. They prove
that the Syrian text was predominant in the Greek world, but
they do not prove that it is the most authentic form of the
text. Some of the later uncials, however, contain earlier
texts to a greater or less degree ; and these deserve a separate
mention.
L (Codex Begins), in the National Library at Paris, is con-
spicuous among the later uncials for the antiquity of the text
which it preserves, and it was probably copied from a very early
manuscript. It is assigned to the eighth century, and contains
the Gospels complete, except for a few small lacunas. It has a
large number of Alexandrian readings (having in fact probably
been written in Egypt), but it is also in very great measure
Neutral in its character, and it is very frequently found in con-
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 147
junction with B in readings which are now generally accepted as
the best. One notable case in which its evidence is of special
interest is at the end of Bt. Mark's Gospel. Like B and M it
breaks off at the end of t^. 8 ; but unlike them it proceeds to give
two alternative endings. The second of these is the ordinary
w. 9-20, but the first is a shorter one, which is also found in a
small number of minor authorities : " But they told to Peter and
his companions all the things that had been said unto them. And
after these things the Lord Jesus himself also, from morning even
until evening, sent forth by them the holy and imperishable pro-
clamation of eternal salvation." It is certain that this is not the
original ending of St. Mark's Gospel, but it is very probably an
early substitute for the true ending, which may have been lost
through some accident,* or else not written at all. In any case it
is interesting as showing the independent character of L and
increasing the general value of its testimony elsewhere.
P (Codex GuelpherbytanuB A) is a palimpsest of the sixth
century, containing 518 verses from various parts of all four
Gospels, over which have been written some of the works of Isidore
of Seville. It is now at Wolfenbiittel in Germany. Its text is
partly Syrian,- but contains some good readings.
Q (Codex Guelpherbytanas B) i^, another palimpsest, of the fifth
century, containing 247 verses from St. Luke and St. Jobn ; it
now forms part of the same volume as P, and its text is of the
same general character.
E (Codex Nitriensis) is a palimpsest in the British Museum
(Add. MS. 17,211), where it may be seen exhibited in the same
case as the Codex Alexandrinus. It was brought from the convent
of St. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian Desert of Egypt. It contains
516 verses of St. Luke in a fine large hand of the sixth century.
* Dr. Hort suggests that a leaf containing w. 9-20 may have been lost from
an early copy of the second century ; but it must be observed that this implies
that the manuscript was written in book form, which is very improbable at
that date. If it were a papyrus roll, as is most likely, the end would be in the
inside of the roll, and therefore not exposed to much risk of damage.
K 2
148 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
over which a Syi'iac treatise by Severus of Antioch has been
written in the eighth or ninth century. Its text is distinctly valu-
able, and it contains a large proportion of pre-Syrian readings.
T (Codex Borg^anns), in the Propaganda at Eome, is peculiar
as containing both Greek and Coptic texts, the latter being of the
Thebaic or Sahidic version. It' is only a fragment, or rather
several small fragments, containing 179 verses of St. Luke and
St. John. It is of the fifth century, and contains an almost en-
tirely Neutral text, with a few Alexandrian corrections. Dr. Hort
ranks it next after B and N for excellence of text. Several frag-
ments of other Graeco-Coptic MSS. have since been discovered of
lesser size and importance.
Z (Codex Dublinensis) is a palimpsest, consisting of 32 leaves,
containing 295 verses of St. Matthew in writing of the sixth
or possibly the fifth century, over which some portions of Greek
Fathers were written in the tenth century. It was evidently
written in Egypt, in a very large and beautiful hand. Its text is
decidedly pre-Syrian, but it agrees with X rather than with B.
A, i.e. Delta, the fourth letter in the Greek alphabet (Codex
Sangallensis), is a nearly complete copy of the Gospels in Greek,
with a Latin translation between the lines, written in the ninth
century by an Irish scribe at the monastery of St. Gall in Switzer-
land. It was originally part of the same manuscript as G3 of the
Pauline Epistles. Its text, except in St. Mark, is of the ordinary
Syrian type and calls for no special notice, but in St. Mark it is
decidedly Neutral and Alexandrian, of the same type as L.
H, i,e. Xi, the fourteenth letter of the Greek alphabet (Codex
Zacynthins), is a palimpsest containing 342 verses of St. Luke,
written in the eighth century, but covered in the thirteenth
with a lectionary. It is now in the library of the British and
Foreign Bible Society in London, whither it was brought from the
island of Zante in 1820. Its text belongs to the same class as L,
having a large number of Alexandrian readings, and also some of
Western type ; but its substratum is to a great extent Neutral, and
Dr. Hort places it next to T.
.5 J' .A.i^-itrtlf ^Ol "
THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 149
Such is the roll of the most important uncial manuscripts of the
New Testament. Of the great crowd of cursive MSS., which run
into hundreds and thousands, we do not propose to speak. A few
of the most remarkable of them, which contain texts of an early
type, have been mentioned on p. 103 ; but for the most part they
do but reproduce, with less and less authority as they become later
in date, the prevailing Syrian type of text. No doubt good read-
ings may lurk here and there among them, but the chances against
it are many ; and the examination of them belongs to the pro-
fessional student of Biblical criticism, and not to those who desire
only to know the most important of the authorities upon which
rests our knowledge of the Bible text. Only for completeness sake,
and as an example of the smaller form of writing prevalent in
Greek manuscripts from the ninth century to the fifteenth, is a
plate given here of one of these " cursive " MSS. (Plate XIV.).
The manuscript here reproduced was written in the year 1022, and
is now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. It contains the
Gospels only, and its official designation in the list of New Testa-
ment MSS. is Evan. 348. The page of which the upper half is here
produced, on the same scale as the original, contains the beginning
of St. Mark's Gospel. Its text is of no special interest ; it is simply
an average specimen of the Greek Gospels current in the Middle
Ages, in the beautiful Greek writing of the eleventh century.
The most important authorities for the text of the Greek
Testament have now been described in some detail ; and it is to
be hoped that the reader to whom the matter contained in these
pages is new will henceforth feel a livelier interest when he strolls
through the galleries of one of our great libraries and sees the
opened pages of these ancient witnesses to the Word of God.
These are no common books, such as machinery turns out in
hundreds every day in these later times. Each one of them was
Written by the personal labour and sanctified by the prayers of
some Egyptian or Syrian Christian of the early days, some Greek
or Latin Monk of the Middle Ages, working in the writing-room
of some great monastery of Eastern or Western Europe. Each
150 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NANU8CEIPTS.
has its own individualifcy, which must be sought out by modern
scholars with patient toil and persevering study. And from the
comparison of all, from the weighing, and not counting merely, of
their testimony, slowly is being built up a purer and more accurate
representation of the text of our sacred books than our fathers and
our forefathers possessed, and we are brought nearer to the very
words which Evangelist and Apostle wrote, eighteen hundred years
or more ago.
( 151 )
CHAPTER VIII.
THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
XN this chapter we are like hunters who have beaten through
-*- the ground on which their game is chiefly expected to be
found, and then proceed to outlying covers and patches in which
they have good hope to find something which, though not equal to
what they have already got, may yet add appreciably to the value
of their bag. We go out into a wider territory. Not Greek alone,
but all the tongues of Pentecost — the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in
Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the
parts of Libya about Cyrene, sojourners in Rome, and Arabians —
are now laid under contribution* We go to Syrian, and Egyptian,
and Roman, and ask them when the sacred Scriptures were trans-
lated into their language, and what information they can give us
as to the character and exact words of the Greek text from which
their translations were originally made. And the answer is that
the Word of God was delivered to the dwellers in these lands
several centuries before the date at which the oldest of our Greek
manuscripts were written. The Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts
carry us back, as we have just seen, to about the middle of the
fourth century — say, to a.d. 350. But the New Testament was
translated into Syriac and into Latin before a.d. 150, and into
Egyptian somewhere about a.d. 200 ; and the copies which we now
possess of these versions are lineal descendants of the original
translations made at these dates. The stream of textual tradition
was tapped at these points, far higher in its course than the
highest point at which we have access to the original Greek. If
we can ascertain with certainty what were the original words of the
Syriac or Latin translations, we can generally know what was the
Greek text which the translator had before him : we know, that
is, what words were found in a Greek manuscript which was extant
152 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
in the first half of the second century, and which cannot have
been written very far from a.d. 100. Of course variations and
mistakes crept into the copies of these translations, just as they
did into the Greek manuscripts, and much skill and labour are
necessary to establish the true readings in these passages ; but we
have the satisfaction of knowing that we are working back at the
common object (the recovery of the original text of the Bible)
along an independent line ; and when many of these lines converge
on a single point, our confidence in the accuracy of our conclusions
is enormously increased,
§ 1. — ^Eastern Versions.
The Gospel was first preached in the East, and we will therefore
take first the versions in the languages of those countries which
lay nearest to Judaea. Of these, none can take
Versions? precedence of th« Syriac version, Syriac, as has
been already stated (p. 73), is the language of
Mesopotamia and Syria, and was likewise (with some variety of
dialect) the current language of every-day life in Palestine in the
time of our Lord. More than one translation of the Bible was
made into this language, and these will be described in order.
(a) The Old or Cnretonian Syriac (distinguished as Cur, in the
Variorum Bible).' Our knowledge of this version is due entirely
to quite recent discoveries. Little more than fifty years ago its
very existence was unknown. Some acute critics had indeed
guessed that there must have been a version in Syriac older than
that which bears the name of the Peshitto (see belotv), but no
portion of it was known to exist. In 1842, however, a great mass
of Syriac manuscripts reached the British Museum from the
library of a monastery in the Nitrian Desert in Egypt, — ^the result
of long negotiations with the monks by various travellers. Among
them was the palimpsest under whose Syriac text is the copy of
the Greek Gospels known as E (see p. 147), many copies of the
ordinary Syriac Bible, and other precious documents. But among
them also were some eighty leaves of a copy of the Gospels in
8YRIAC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 153
Syriac which Dr. Cureton, one of the officers of the Museum, re-
cognised as containing a completely diiferent text from any manu-
script previously known. These leaves were edited by him, with a
preface in which he contended that in this version we have the very
words of our Lord's discourses, in the identical language in which
they were originally spoken. The manuscript itself (of which a fac-
simile maybe seen in Plate XV.) is of the fifth century, practically
contemporary with the earliest manuscripts which we possess of
the Peshitto Syriac ; but Cureton argued that the character of the
translation showed that the original of his version (which from the
name of its discoverer is often known as the Curetonian Syriac)
must have been made earlier than the original of the Peshitto, and
that, in fact, the Peshitto was a revision of the Old Syriac, just as
the Vulgate Latin was in part a revision of the Old Latin,
On this point a hot controversy has raged. In calling this
version the Old Syriac, Ave have for the moment begged the
question, believing that the balance of evidence tends to support
this view ; but it is only fair to state that the opposite opinion
has been held by very high authorities. There is no question that
the Curetonian Syriac is less accurate, less scholarly, less smooth
than the Peshitto. There is also no doubt that the Peshitto was
eventually the Authorised Version among Syriac Christians, the
other being practically annihilated. The question is whether the
Curetonian is a corruption of the Peshitto, or the Peshitto a
revision of the Curetonian, or whether the connection between
them is something more remote and indirect. It is too technical
a controversy to be fully argued here, but in support of the view
that the Curetonian is the older text it may be maintained that if
an accurate version (such as the Peshitto) was in existence, it is
not likely that it would be deliberately altered so as to make it less
accurate, or that a less accurate independent version would be cir-
culated ; that the ultimate prevalence of the Peshitto is no proof
of its superior antiquity, any more than the ultimate prevalence of
the Vulgate proves it to be older than the Old Latin, but rather
the reverse ; and that the affinities of the Curetonian version are
154 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
- ... I ■ ■ ■■ »■ ■--■■■-■»■— I . !■ ■■ ■■ »■ ■■■■<■■ ■ ■■ ■ I I ■ I I ■■ ■■ ■ ■ — I. I ■■ ■ I I
with the older forms of the Greek text, while those of the Peshitto
are with its later forms. The Curetonian Syriac is found in
alliance with the Greek manuscripts B, X, and D, rather than with
A or C. As has been shown above (p. 143) it is often found sup-
porting the same readings as D and the Old Latin, even where
these are most unlike all other authorities. In short, its text is
mainly Western, while the text of the Peshitto is mainly Syrian,
like that of A and the majority of later MSS.
Fresh light, however, has just been poured upon the subject by
a new discovery, which will no doubt re-open the controversy. A
new copy of the Old Syriac Gospels has been discovered, and its
text has been published while this book was being written. In
1892 two enterprising Cambridge ladies, Mrs. Lewis and her sister,
Mrs. Gibson, visited the Monastery of St. Catherine, on Mount
Sinai, the very place where Tischendorf made his celebrated dis-
covery of the Codex Sinaiticus, and where Prof. Eeudel Harris had
quite recently found a Syriac copy of a very early Christian work,
hitherto supposed to be lost, the "Apology" of Aristides. These
ladies photographed a number of manuscripts, among them a
Syriac palimpsest which they had noticed as containing a Gospel
text ; and when they brought their photographs home, the under-
lying text of this palimpsest was recognised by two Cambridge
Orientalists, Mr. Burkitt and Prof. Bensly, as belonging to the
Old Syriac version, hitherto known only in the fragments of
Cureton. The palimpsest contains the greater part (about three-
fourths, the rest being undecipherable) of the four Gospels.
Naturally enough the announcement of the discovery aroused
much interest ; but Biblical students have had to possess their
souls in patience while another expedition was made to Sinai to
copy the MS. in full, and while the half obliterated writing was
being painfully deciphered and edited. The result is now before
the world, and though much discussion will be needed before a
settled conclusion can be reached, it is possible to indicate the
general bearings of the new discovery.
It is clear, in the first place, that the Sinaitic MS. does not
<»T<;a riSi.:, ^ci»«=j '
°" -^"^ . ^
jw,,- ^^rA ^<'
- .«*
CtJHETONlAN SVRUC MS. 5t11 CeNT.
{Original lize of page, IK in. x^in.; without maPff.
»ii».x71i»».)
8TRIAC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 155
represent precisely the same text as the Curetonian. The differ-
ences between them are much more marked than, say, between any
two manuscripts of the Peshitto or of the Greek Testament. One
striking proof of this may be found in the first chapter of St.
Matthew ; for whereas the Curetonian MS. emphasises the fact of
the Miraculous Conception, reading in e^. 16* "Jacob begat Joseph,
to Whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, who bare Jesus Christ "
(thus avoiding even the word "husband," which occurs in the
Greek), the Sinaitic MS. as emphatically denies it, reading "Jacob
begat Joseph, and Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the
Virgin, begat Jesus who is called Christ." Similar additions are
made elsewhere, and it is not surprising that some scholars have
been eager to claim this as the original form of the narrative, the
story of the Divine Conception being (in their view) a later ex-
crescence. To the sober student, who tries to divest himself of
prejudice in either direction (and it must not be supposed that
all prejudice is on the side of orthodoxy), such a contention will
appear quite uncritical. It is true that the genealogy of our Lord
in Matt. 1, 1-16 was probably copied from a contemporary record,
and that in such a record our Lord would undoubtedly have been
described as the son of Joseph. But in any case the conclusion of
the document (with its reference to Mary and to the title of
" Christ ") has been altered when it was incorporated into the
Gospel, and the only question is whether it was incorporated in
the form in which it stands in the Sinaitic Syriac, or in that of
the Greek manuscripts and all other versions. And here the Sinai-
tic copy betrays itself ; for it contains several phrases which are
quite inconsistent with the denial of the Divine Conception. The
title " Mary the Virgin " itself implies a comparatively late origin ;
and the phrase "before they came together," the quotation from
Isaiah referring to the Virgin Birth, and the narrative of Joseph's
doubts and behaviour are meaningless and uninteUigible in con-
nection with the new reading in e^. 16. In short, the Greek
* Plate XV. exhibits this portion of the Curetonian MS., the page containing
Matt. 1. 14-23.
156 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
manuscripts give a consistent story of a miraculous event ; the
Sinaitic Syriac gives an inconsistent story of what purports to be
a natural event.
The interest naturally associated with so recent a discovery
perhaps justifies this longer discussion of a single passage ; but it
also has a direct bearing on our subject, because it helps to indicate
the position of the Old Syriac in the history of the Bible text. It
clearly belongs to an old family in the pedigree of texts, and the
Sinaitic MS. seems to contain it in an earlier form than the
Curetonian. Besides the passage just discussed, it diifers from
the Curetonian in the important case of the last twelve verses of
St. Mark. These are present in the Curetonian MS., but are
omitted in the Sinaitic, which thus takes a place beside B and K,
which have hitherto stood alone in this omission. There are
several other interesting variants from the normal text, but there
is no room to discuss them here.
The general result (so far as first impressions go) would seem to
be that the Curetonian and Sinaitic texts represent two closely
allied branches of a common stock, each of them having been
somewhat considerably altered in the course of transmission, but
altered in different directions. The Sinaitic MS., or rather the
original from which it is descended, was probably made for one of
the early heretical bodies which held that our Lord was bom in
the ordinary way, and that the Divine Spirit entered Him at
His baptism ; while the Curetonian MS. represents an orthodox
revision of the same version. Although, then, there is no justi-
fication for the attempt to exalt the newly discovered palimpsest
into an authority superior to the oldest and best Greek manu-
scripts, the evidence of both the Curetonian and the Sinaitic MSS.
is of great value, on account of the date to which it carries us
back. Both contain an early type of text, and when the age of
the two manuscripts is remembered (the Curetonian being of the
fifth century, the Sinaitic not later, and perhaps slightly earlier),
it is evident that the common original from which they have
branched off must be placed very early indeed. We seem, then, to
8YBIAC VEB8I0N8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 157
have something of the same state of things as we shall find in the
case of the Latin versions, where we have a number of very early
texts collectively known as the Old Latin version, but differing
very widely among themselves ; the whole being finally superseded
by the new version of St. Jerome (partly revised, partly re-trans-
l&ted from the originals), which we know as the Vulgate. The
exact relation of this Curetonian-Sinaitic version to the Peshitto
still remains not absolutely clear. Cureton's belief that the
Peshitto is the result of a revision of his version is not shared by
the scholar who is engaged in editing the Peshitto, Mr. Gwilliam.
On the other hand he does not seem to have overthrown the view
that the Curetonian is (or is based upon) an older form of text
than the Peshitto ; and therefore we shall continue to call this
version, of which the Curetonian and Sinaitic manuscripts repre*-
sent divergent modifications, by the convenient name of the Old
Syriac.
{I) The Peshitto {Pesh, in Variorum Bible). — This is the great
standard version of the ancient Syriac Church, made not later than
the third century (those scholars who hold it older than the Cure-
tonian would say the second), and certainly current and in general
use from the fourth century onwards. The name means " simple ^
or " common," but the origin of it is unknown. It is known to us
in a much greater number of manuscripts than the Old Syriac,
the total hitherto recorded being 177. Most of these, including
the most ancient, formed part of the splendid collection of Syriac
MSS. from the Nitrian Desert to which allusion has already been
made (p. 152), and are now in the British Museum. Of some
of these, containing parts of the Old Testament, we have spoken
above (p. 74). Of those which contain the New Testament, two
are of the fifth century (the oldest being Add. MS. 14,459, in the
British Museum, containing the Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. Mark), and at least a dozen more are not later than the sixth
century, three of them bearing precise dates in the years 530-39,
534, and 548. The Peshitto was first printed by Widmanstadt, in
1555, from only two manuscripts, both of late date. It is now
158 OVB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
being re-edited by Mr. Gwilliam from some forty MSS., many of
them of very early date, as shown above ; but so carefully were the
later copies of the Peshitto made, between the fifth and twelfth
centuries, that the substantial difference between these two editions
is very slight.
That the foundations of the Peshitto go back to a very early
date is shown by the fact that it does not contain those books of
the New Testament which were the last to be generally accepted.
All copies of it omit 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the
Apocalypse. It is a smooth, scholarly, accurate version, free and
idiomatic, without being loose, and it is evidently taken from a
Greek text of the Syrian family. Its relations with the old Syriac
have been discussed above. It appears to be not so much a re-
vision of it (at any rate as it appears in the Curetonian and
Sinaitic MSS.) as a later version based in part upon it, but upon
other materials as well. More than this it would not be safe to
say until Syriac scholars have made up their minds on the subject
more definitely and with a greater approach to unanimity than is
at present the case.
{c) The Fhiloxenian or HarUeiaji Syriac. — In the year 508,
Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug, in Eastern Syria, thinking the
current Peshitto version did not represent the original Greek
accurately enough, caused it to be revised throughout by one
Polycarp ; and in a.d. 616 this version was itself revised, with
the assistance of some Greek manuscripts in Alexandria, by
Thomas of Harkel, himself also subsequently Bishop of Mabug.
This version had practically escaped notice until 1730, when four
copies of it were sent from the East to Dr. Eidley, of New College,
Oxford, from which, after his death, an edition was printed by
Prof. J. White in 1778-1803. It is now known to us in many
more manuscripts, a total of 36 being recorded, of which half
are in England. The best is said to be one in the Cambridge
University Library, written in 1170, but a copy of the seventh
century and another of the eighth century exist at Rome,
another at Florence bears the date a.d. 757, and there are two of
8YBIAC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 159
the tenth century in the British Museum. The version is ex-
tremely literal, and follows the Greek with most servile exactness,
which has at least the advantage of making it quite certain what
form of words is being translated. The MSS. used by Thomas
of Harkel in his revision were evidently of the Western type,
but the text of the Philoxenian-Harkleian version as a whole is
of a very mixed description.
{d) The Palestinian Syriac-^There is yet another version of
the New Testament in Syriac, known to us only in fragments,
in a different dialect of Syriac from all the other versions. It
is believed to have been made in the fifth or sixth century, and
to have been used exclusively in Palestine. It was originally
discovered at the end of the last century by Adler in a Lectionary
(containing lessons from the Gospels only) in the Vatican Library,
and fully edited by Erizzo in 1861-4. Since then fragments of
the Gospels and Acts have come to light in the British Museum
and at St. Petersburg ; fragments of the Pauline Epistles in the
Bodleian and at Mount Sinai; and two additional Lectionaries
have been found at the latter place by Mrs. Lewis, and will
shortly be edited by her. The text of this version is, on the
whole, of a Western type. Dr. Hort considers that it rests in part
on the Peshitto, but it is generally held to be quite independent,
and to be the result of a fresh translation from the Greek.
This closes the list of Syriac Versions,* which rank among the
oldest and most interesting of all translations of the New Testa-
ment. From Syria and Mesopotamia we pass now to the neigh-
bouring country of Egypt.
The history of the Coptic language, as it existed in Egypt at
the time when the Christian Scriptures were translated in that
country, has been told in a previous chapter (p. 75). There can be
* Another Syriac version is sometimes enumerated, styled the Karkaphensian ;
but this is not a continuous version at all, but a collection of passages on which
annotations are made dealing with questions of spelling and pronunciation. It
is like the Massorah on the Hebrew Old Testament, and probably derives its
name from the monastery in which it was compiled.
160 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
no doubfc that Christianity spread into Egypt at a very early date.
Alexandria, then the head-quarters of Greek
Verrionsf^ literature, possessed a large colony of Jews, by and
for whom the Septuagint version of the Hebrew
Scriptures had been made ; and religious thought and philosophy
flourished among them. Applies, the disciple of St. Paul, was a
Jew of Alexandria ; and the intercourse of Alexandria with
Palestine, with Syria, and with Asia Minor, made it inevitable that
the new religion should spread thither soon after it had over-leapt
the boundaries of Palestine itself. . At what precise date the New
Testament books were translatecl into thei native language of
Egypt we cannot tell. Some timeJ would elapse before' t^he faith
spread from the Greek-speaking population to the Coptic natives ;
some time more before oral teaching was superseded by written
books. But by or soon after the end of the second century it is
probable that the first Coptic versions had been made. Our know-
ledge of these versions is, for the most part, of quite recent growth,
and is growing still. Different dialects were spoken in different
parts of the country, and each of these came in course of time to
have its own version of the Scriptures. Until recently only two
of these versions were known ; we are now acquainted, more or
less, with five, and it is not improbable that the discoveries which
come in so thickly upon us from Egypt will increase this number
in the near future.
(a) The MempMtic or Bohairic Version {MempJi. in Variorum
Bible) was the version current in Lower (i,e. Northern) Egypt, of
which the principal native town was Memphis. Originally, how-
ever, the dialect in which it is written belonged only to the coast
district near Alexandria, and another dialect was in use in Mem-
phis itself ; hence it is better to avoid the term Memphitic, and
use the more strictly accurate name Bohairic, This was the most
developed and most literary dialect of the Egyptian language,
and ultimately spread up the country and superseded all the other
dialects. The consequence of this is that the Bohairic is the
Coptic of to-day, so far as the language still exists, and that in
m
feiTpy^tje
BonAiKic MS.— 4,r>, 1208.
/e, 13! in. ' lOin.; of part rtproduc,
COPTIC VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 161
the Bohairic dialect alone are complete copies of the New Testa-
ment still extant. All the other Coptic versions exist in fragments
only.
The Bohairic version was first made known by some Oxford
scholars at the end of the seventeenth century, and the first printed
edition of it was published at Oxford by Wilkins in 1716.
Neither in this nor in any subsequent edition has sufficient use
been made of the manuscripts available for comparison, and a good
edition is still required, a want which is now in course of being
supplied by the Eev. G. Homer, of Oxford. Over a hundred
manuscripts exist and have been examined, but none of them is of
a very early date. The oldest and best is a MS. of the Gospels at
Oxford, which is dated a.d. 1173-4 ; there is one at Paris dated in
1178-80; there is another, in the British Museum, of the year
1192 ; others are of the thirteenth and later centuries. There is
indeed a single leaf of the Epistle to the Ephesians which may be
as early as the fifth century (in the British Museum), but this
exception is too small to be important. The Apocalypse was not
originally included in this version, and we know that in the third
century its authenticity was questioned in Egypt. The translation
is generally good and careful, so that it is easy to see what was the
Greek which the translator had before him in any particular
passage. The text, too, is of an excellent type. Excluding passages
which appear only in the later MSS., and which evidently were not
in the original version, the Bohairic text is mainly of a Neutral or
Alexandrian type, with not much mixture of Western readings,
and little or nothing of Syrian. The doubt about the last twelve
verses of St. Mark appears in the best MS., which gives the
shorter alternative ending (as in L, see p. 147) in the margin.
Otherwise all the Bohairic MSS. have the usual verses 9-20. The
passage John 7. 53 — 8. 11 is omitted by all the best MSS. The
pureness of the text is another argument in favour of this version
having been made at an early date.
The specimen here given (Plate XVI.) is taken from a manu-
script in the British Museum (MS. Or. 1315) which was written in
S 2764. L
162 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
the year 1208. It affords an average specimen of Coptic writing
of this period, and of the form of ornamentation (copied from
Byzantine MSS.) which is sometimes found in them. The page
here given (five lines being omitted from the bottom, and the
whole being much reduced in scale) contains the beginning of
St. Mark. In the margin, which is not shown in the plate, is an
Arabic version of the Gospels. Such versions are a common ac-
companiment of Coptic MSS,, and are no doubt due to the fact
that Coptic has gradu£|,lly become a dead language, Arabic alone
being understood. At the present day there is a tendency to
substitute Arabic for Coptic in the services of the Church.
ip) The Thebaic or Sahidic Version {Thel. in Variorum Bible). —
Again, Thebaic is the older name, Sahidic the more accurate. This
is the version which was current in Upper {i,e. Southern) Egypt, of
which the chief town was Thebes. Its existence was not noticed
until the end of the eighteenth century, and the first printed
edition was that of Woide, published at Oxford, after his death, in
1799. Since that dp-te our knowledge of the Sahidic version has
enormously increased, and a new edition of it is urgently required.
It exists only in fragments, but these fragments are now very
numerous indeed, especially at Paris, and when put together they
would compose a nearly complete New Testament, with consider-
able portions of the Old. Many of the fragments are of very early
date, going back to the fifth, or possibly even the fourth century ;
but the dating of Coptic MSS. is a very difficult task. The
original translation, however, was probably made somewhat later
than the Bohairic version, as is only natural, since Christianity
was first introduced into Lower Egypt, and thence spread up the
Nile into Upper Egypt. As in the Bohairic, the Apocalypse seems
originally to have formed no part of the New Testament. The
translation is somewhat less faithful than the Bohairic, the lan-
guage rougher and less polished. The text also is less pure,
including a considerable Western element, so that it must have
been translated independently from the Greek, and from manu-
scripts belonging to the Western family. Thus it is reckoned by
PLATE XTII.
ait fiaf^i.t c CO r ■•ri#_»^AFH f I M^V'^ f '•>
. J6.MAAV lOo
.■•i4«tMf|i<l?tl'r
•l?yriftHnM"|t4
r^liWr '-TMf li^lf'.to-
^jIMm 1 1 Y^ M 1 1 M > -t M
pi-of^iFoVAMM"*
AMM4YAA^« ^
pAr-r-iAFM^rrMM
Sahidic MS.—
lOiiffiai
COPTIC VEBSIONS OF THE .NEW TESTAMENT. 165
■ ■■ . . fc
Dr. Hort as a not unfrequent ally of the chief representatives of
that form of the text, the Codex Bezas (D), and the Old Latin and
Old Syriac versions.
The specimen shown in our Plate XVII. is selected mainly on
the ground of its age. It is probably one of the oldest extant
fragments of the Sahidic New Testament, having perhaps been
written in the fifth century. It is now in the British Museum
(MS. Or. 4717 (10) ). Unfortunately, it is only a fragment con-
sisting of four pages. The page exhibited, which is reproduced
in its original size, contains 2 Thess. 3. 2-11. No important
variations of reading occur in this passage.
The remaining Coptic versions may be dismissed very briefly.
They have only recently been discovered, they are known as yet
only in a few fragments, and their characteristics cannot yet be
said to be established. Hence they have not yet made their
appearance in critical editions of the New Testament, and may for
the present be disregarded. They are {c) the Fayyiunic, or version
current in the district of the Fayyum, west of the Nile and south
of the Delta, from which an enormous number of Greek and Coptic
papyri have reached Europe in recent years. It appears to be
related to the Sahidic, being probably descended from an early
form of the same version, (d) The Middle Egyptian, found in
manuscripts from the region of Memphis, related, like the Fayyumic,
to the Sahidic. (e) The Akhnumic, found in a number of fragments
from the neighbourhood of Akhmim, the ancient Panopolis, from
which also came the manuscript containing the extraordinarily
interesting portions of the apocryphal Gospel and Eevelation of
Peter which were published in 1892. This is said to be the
earliest dialect of the Coptic language, but at present only a few
small fragments of the New Testament have been published, the
first to appear being the discovery of Mr. W. E. Crum. It is as
certain as such speculations can be, that our knowledge of the
Egyptian versions will be very greatly increased within the next
few years. Materials are rapidly coming to light, and scholars
competent to deal with them are now not wanting. Meanwhile we
L 2
164 OTIB BIBLE AND TEE ANCIENT MANVfSCBIPTS.
must be thankful for the high character of the versions which
are already available for the criticism and restoration of the
sacred text.
The remaining Oriental versions of the New Testament may be
dismissed with a very short notice. Their evidence may sometimes
be called into court, but it is seldom of much importance.
The Armenian version, as we have it now, dates from the fifth
century. Up to about the year 390 Annenia, the country to the
east of Asia Minor and north of Mesopotamia, lying between the
Eoman and Persian empires, possessed no version of its own ; but
between that date and a.d. 400 translations of both Old and
New Testaments were made, partly from Greek and partly from
Syriac. About the year 433 these translations were revised with
the help of Greek manuscripts brought from Constantinople. The
result was the existing Armenian version, which consequently has,
as might be expected, a very mixed kind of text. One very in-
teresting piece of evidence has, however, been preserved in an
Armenian manuscript. Most of the oldest MSS. of the Gospels
in this version omit the last twelve verses of St. Mark ; but one
of them, written in the year 989, contains them, with a heading
stating that they are " of the Elder Aristion."* Aristion lived in
the first century, and is mentioned by Papias, his younger contem-
porary, as having been a disciple of the Lord. If the tradition
which assigns to him the authorship of Mark 16. 9-20 may be
accepted, it will clear up the doubts surrounding that passage in
a satisfactory way. It will show that St. Mark's Gospel was left
unfinished, or was mutilated at a very early date, and that a sum-
mary of the events following the Resurrection, written by Aristion,
was inserted to fill the gap ; and we gain the evidence of another
witness of our Lord's life on earth. The earliest MS. of the
Armenian Gospels is dated in the year 887 ; there are probably
two others of the ninth century and six of the tenth. The rest of
♦ The credit of this discovery belongs to Mr. F. C. Conybeare, of Uniyersity
College, Oxford.
EASTEBN VERSIONS OF THE imW TESTAMENT, 165
the New Testament is only found in copies containing the whole
Bible, which are rare and never older than the twelfth century.
The Gk)thic version, as has already been stated (p. 77), was
made for the Goths in the fourth century, while they were settled
in Moesia, before they overran Western Europe. It was made by
their Bishop Ulfilas, and was translated directly from the Greek.
We know it now only in fragments, more than half of the Gospels
being preserved in a magnificent manuscript at Upsala, in Sweden,
written (in the fifth or sixth century) in letters of gold and silver
upon purple vellum. Some portions of the Epistles of St. Paul
are preserved in palimpsest fragments at Milan; but the Acts,
Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse are entirely lost. The Greek
text used by Ulfilas seems to have been of the Syrian type in the
New Testament, just as it was of Syrian (Lucianic) type in the
Old.
The Ethiopic version belongs to the country of Abyssinia, and
was probably made about the year 600 ; but most of the existing
manuscripts (of which there are over a hundred) are as late as the
seventeenth century, only a few going back as early as the fifteenth,
the oldest of all (at Paris) being of the thirteenth century. Little
is known about the character of the text, as it has never been
critically edited.
Several Arabic versions are known to exist, some being trans-
lations from the Greek, some from Syriac, and some from Coptic,
while others are revisions based upon some or all of these. None
is earlier than the seventh century, perhaps none so early ; and
for critical purposes none is of any value.
Other Oriental versions (Georgian, Slavonic, Persian) are of still
later date, and may be ignored.
§ 2. — The Western Versions.
We now pass to the Western world, and trace the history of the
New Testament as it spread from its obscure home in Palestine to
the great capital of the world, and to the countries in its neigh-
bourhood which owned its sway and spoke its language. In
166 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CEIPT8.
— • ■ —
speaking of the Latin Bible we are at once taking a great step
nearer home ; for Latin was the literary language of our own fore-
fathers, and the Latin Bible was for centuries the official Bible of
our own country. Nay, more, it was from the Latin Bible that
the first English Bibles were translated. Therefore we have a
special interest in the history of this version, an interest which is
still further increased by the remarkable character which it pos-
sessed in its earlier stages, and by the minuteness with which we
are able to trace its fortunes in later days. We have already
described the Latin versions in relation to the Old Testament ; we
have now to speak of them in relation to the New.
In the Old Testament we have seen that there are two Latin
versions, known as the Old Latin and the Vulgate ; and we have
seen that of these the Vulgate is the more important as an aid to
the recovery of the original Hebrew text, because it was translated
directly from the Hebrew, while the Old Latin was translated from
the Septuagint ; and also because the Vulgate is complete, while
the Old Latin has only come down to us in fragments. In respect
of the New Testament the relative importance of the two is some-
what different. Here we possess both versions practically com-
plete : and whereas the Old Latin was translated direct from the
original Greek, the Vulgate was only a revision of the Old Latin.
Moreover, we possess a few manuscripts of the original Greek
which are as early as the Vulgate ; but the Old Latin was made
long before any of our manuscripts were written, and takes us
back almost to within a generation of the time at which the sacred
books were themselves composed.
The Old Latin Version is consequently one of the most valuable
and interesting evidences which we possess for the condition of the
New Testament text in the earliest times. It has already been
said (p. 78) that it was originally made in the second century,
perhaps not very far from a.d. 150, and probably, though not
certainly, in Africa. Another version, apparently independent,
subsequently appeared in Europe ; and the divergencies between
these rival translations, as well as the extensive variations of text
FLATS XTIIL
le.cii'i^'N? rcfljosirsec
"" ,"^^l'i^Wcl^^oCo,
LATIN VERSIONS OF THE 2^W TESTAMENT. 167
which found their way into both, made a revision necessary, which
Was actually produced in Italy in the fourth century. Hence it is
that thtee different families or groups can be traced, the African,
the European, and the Italian. We are able to identify these
several families by means of the quotations which occur in the
writings of the Latin Fathers. Thus the quotations of Cyprian,
who died in 258, give us a representation of the African text ;
the European text is found in the Latin version of the works
of Irenseus by Rufinus, who died in 397 ; while the Italian text
appears conspicuously in Augustine (a.d. 354-430). By the
help of such evidence as this we can identify the texts which are
found in the various manuscripts of the Old Latin which have
come down to us.
Owing to the fact that the Vulgate eventually superseded the
Old Latin as the Bible of the Western Church, manuscripts of the
latter are scarce, but when they exist are generally very old. No
copy contains the whole of the New Testament, and very few are
perfect even in the books which they contain. Thitty-eight
manuscripts of the Old Latin exist ; of these, twenty-eight contain
the Gospels, four the Acts, five the Catholic Epistles, eight the
Pauline Epistles, and thl'ee the Apocalypse, of which a practically
complete text is also preserved to Us in the cotimientary of Prima-
sius, an African Father of the sixth century* Manuscripts of the
Old Latin are indicated in critical editions by the small italic
letters of the alphabet. One of the oldest and best is the Codex
Vercellensis («), of which a facsimile is given in Plate XVIII.
It contains the four Gospels, in the ordef usual in the Western
Church, namely, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It is written in
silver letters, in very narrow columns, on extremely thin vellum
stained with purple. The passage shown in the Plate is John 16.
23-30. In verse 25 this MS. has a curious reading, which is
found nowhere else ; instead of " Ye shall ask in my name ; and
I say not unto you that I will pray the Father for you," it has
"ask in my name, and I will pray for you." The passage may be
seen at the top of the second column : " in nomine meo petite et
168 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
ego rogabo propter vos," the words " et ego " being added above
the line. This manuscript was written in the fourth century, and
is consequently as old as the oldest Greek MSS. of the Bible. It
is now at Vercelli in Italy.
Other important MSS. of the old Latin are, for the Gospels, the
Codex Veronensis (&), of the fourth or fifth century, one of the
most valuable of all ; Codex Colbeetinus (c), an extraordinarily
late copy, having been written in the twelfth century, in Langue-
doc, where the tradition of the Old Latin text lingered very late,
but containing a good text ; Codex Palatinus (e), fourth or
fifth century, very incomplete, containing a distinctly African type
of text ; Codex Beixianus (/), sixth century, with an Italian
text ; Codex Bobiensis (^), fifth or sixth century, containing a
very early form of the African text ; the Latin text of the Codex
BeZwS: {d), for which see p. 139. In the Acts, there are Codex
Bez^ {d)^ as before ; the Latin text of the Codex Laudianus (e),
see p. 145 ; Codex Gigas (^), of the thirteenth century, the
largest manuscript in the world, containing the Acts and Apoca-
lypse in the Old Latin version, the rest in the Vulgate ; and some
palimpsest fragments Qi and «) of the fifth or sixth century. The
Catholic Epistles are very imperfectly represented, being contained
only in the Codex Corbeiensis, of St. James (/), of the tenth
century, and portions of the other epistles in other fragmentary
MSS. The Pauline Epistles are known in the Latin version of
the Codex Claromontanus (^, for which see p. 144 ; e,/, ^ are
similarly Latin versions of other bilingual manuscripts ; and the re-
maining authorities are fragments. The Apocalypse exists only in m
of the Gospels and g and h of the Acts. It must be remembered,
however, that these MSS. are supplemented by the quotations in
Latin Fathers, which are very numerous, and which show what
sort of text each of them had before him when he wrote.
It may be interesting to mention which manuscripts represent
the various families of the Old Latin text. The African text is
found in k and (in a somewhat later form) e of the Gospels, h of
the Acts and Apocalypse, in Primasius on the Apocalypse, and in
LATIN VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169
Cyprian generally. The Italian text, which is the latest of the
three, appears in /and q of the Gospels, q of the Catholic Epistles,
r of the Pauline Epistles, and in Augustine. The remaining MSS.
have, on the whole, European texts (b being an especially good
example), but many of them are mixed and indeterminate in
character, and some have been modified by the incorporation of
readings from the Vulgate.
It has been said above (p. 107) that the Old Latin version
testifies to a type of Greek text of the class which has been de-
scribed as " Western." This applies especially to the African and
European groups of the Old Latin ; the Italian text being
evidently due to a revision of these with the help of Greek copies
of a Syrian type. The earlier forms of the Old Latin, however,
are distinctly Western, as has been shown in describing the peculiar
readings of this class of text ; and since the original translation
into Latin was made in the second century, and perhaps early in
that century, it shows how soon considerable corruptions had been
introduced into the text of the New Testament. It is, indeed,
especially in the earliest period of the history of the text that such
interpolations as those we have mentioned can be introduced. At
that time the books of the New Testament had not come to be
regarded as on a level with those of the Old. They were precious
as a narrative of all-important facts ; but there was no sense of
obligation to keep their language free from all change, and addi-
tions or alterations might be naade without much scruple. Hence
arose the class of manuscripts of which the Old Latin version is
one of the most important representatives.
The Vulgate. — The history of this version has already been
narrated in connection with the Old Testament. It was in the
year 382 that Pope Damasus entrusted Jerome with the task of
producing an authoritative revision of the Latin Bible which
should supersede the innumerable conflicting copies then in exist-
ence. A settled version of the Gospels was naturally regarded as
the prime need, and this was the first part of the work to be
undertaken. Jerome began cautiously. A wholly new version of
170 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
the familiar text would have provoked much opposition, and
Jerome conseqUentlj contented himself, as DamasUs had intended,
with merely revising the existing Old Latin ti*anslation. He
compared it with some ancient Greek manuscripts, and only made
alterations Where they Were absolutely necessary to secure the true
sense of a passage. Minor corrections, though in themselves
certain, he refrained from introducing, in order that the total
change might be as little as possible. The Gospels were completed
in 384, and the rest of the NeW Testament, revised after the same
manner, but still more slightly, probably appeared in the following
year. The Old Testament, which, as we have seen, was an alto-
gether new translation from the Hebrew, was not finished until
twenty years after this date.
The New Testament was consequently a distinct work from the
Old, and Was made on a different principle. It was based on the
"Italian" type of the Old Latin, from which it differs less than the
Italian differs from the primitive " African " text. The revision
which produced the Italian text consisted largely, as we have seen,
in the introduction of Syrian readings into a text which was
mainly Western in character. Jerome's revision removed many of
the Syrian interpolations, but still left the Vulgate a mixed
Western and Syrian text. Its evidence is, consequently, of less
value than that of the earlier versions ; but it must be remem*
bered that all the authorities used by Jerome in the production of
the Vulgate must have been as old as, or older than, the oldest
manuscripts which We now possess.
Manuscripts of the Vtdgate are countless. There is no great
library in Western Europe which does not possess them by scores
and by hundreds. After existing side by side with the Old Latin
version for some centuries it became universally adopted as the
Bible of Western Christendom, and was copied repeatedly in every
monastery and school until the invention of printing. Hence
when we come now to try to recover the original text of the
Vulgate, we are confronted with a task at least as hard as that of
recovering the original text of the Greek Bible itself. It is
iniiivmptnesTJiTe f Tui ri ruTE
' ("ipeRHSpiRITIBUS
jNmiTCaiS etCKtUNT
^&ii iNOoiMwn locum iKx:K>i^ls
^J> iirwjeNSxu'Kxn SesyNtox;*
'-. -WTROnjniNOonxKDSKtxiNir
socBUSAUTtxn sitnoNts
tUT peiSRI exOlCVHSIT iLUto;
' <niNISTRMU,T lUJ*' • '
0(l)M«S GJUlKXBe&WT IKpR
tnos uuui»tji.V(;;uoniDU5
KTlll«SINi;uljS MTVNUS KOpO
NCNs ciiuMworeos .
, e-mNOKpiNl NOMjS&K&lkT
^ *■•• ■;■';!«
secussiACNUm
Bwn-ei'l-^uxpwr rctW-
XSCeNOCNS AUTTW IN^IhlXOI
Kttuan quxeotixi:
lloc*aP. Jwitxi^ x^:,nll^
RyJKiix'Re pusiLLuiw
erseOt-NS OoccRXT
l_ deNMllCoLxTURRVJ.
.-^J^jTcew^urrxuTecnlogm
OlXlTX^sm»oNe^1:l
■ C^ucnxxUi-uivt e-i LxxCtictix
"" UeSTRtLlNCXplXlRMD
eTaespOs(^e^w shtybn
CiVITllii.
pHxecepTOR peRToTXto
NocTtin Lvitouwrrcs
isiueRBoxuToniTUO • -
L*.vxno ivgn:
tnxjuoi hoc pcisseTt
O0N;d.useRu.'«rpisf#'iu(» >
i
ik.
Oin. i.D. 71S.
i/parl reprndneed, Siir
LATIN VEBSI0N8 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 171
believed that over 8000 manuscripts exist in Europe, and the
majority of these have never been fully examined.* It is only
known that the text has been very considerably corrupted, partly
by intermixture with the Old Latin version during the time when
both translations were simultaneously in use, partly by the natural
" accidents attending the text of any book which has been repeatedly
copied. We shall see in the next chapter what attempts were
made to correct it during the Middle Ages. In modem times no
critical edition has yet been produced. Our great English scholat,
Kichard Bentley, examined and caused to be examined a consider-
able number of manuscripts, but never advanced so far as to fottn
a revised text of any part of the Bible. Now at last the task has
been seriously taken in hand, and this very year has witnessed the
completion of an edition of the four Gospels by Bishop Words-
worth of Salisbury and the Kev. H« J. White. This edition is
based upon a complete examination of over thirty of the best
manuscripts, with occasional references to many others, and is the
first truly critical edition of the Yulgate that has ever been pub-
lished. It is sincerely to be hoped that, in due course of time,
the same accomplished editors may give us the rest of the Vulgate
in an equally satisfactory form.
The best manuscript of the Vulgate is the CodeI Amia'TinuS,
of which a reduced facsimile, showing the lower half of the page, is
given in Plate XIX. This has a special interest for Englishmen,
apart from the value of the text contained in it, as having been pro-
duced in England (possibly by an Italian scribe) at the beginning of
the eighth century. Its English origin was only discovered eight
years ago, and in a curious way. On its second page is an inscription
stating that it was presented to the abbey of Monte Amiata by Peter
of Lombardy, and it was always supj)osed to have been written in
Italy. But Peter's name was obviously written over an erasure, and,
besides, spoilt the metre of the verses in which the inscription is
composed. Still the truth was never suspected until a briUiant
* Dr. Gregory gives a list amounting to 2270, but his enumeration does not
pretend to be anything like exhaustive.
172 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MAJsfUSCRIPTS,
conjecture by the Italian 6. B. de Kossi, confirmed by a further dis-
covery by Prof. Hort, showed that the original name was not Peter
of Lombardy, but Ceolfrid of England. Then the whole history of
the MS. was made clear. It was written either at Wearmouth or at
Jarrow, famous schools in the north of England in the seventh and
eighth centuries (having probably been copied from MSS. brought
from Italy by Ceolfrid, or by Theodore of Tarsus, see p. 179), and
was taken by Abbot Ceolfrid as a present to Pope Gregory II. in
the year 716. It was used in the revision of the Vulgate by Pope
Sixtus V. in 1585-90, and its present home is in the great Lauren-
tian Library at Florence. It is a huge volume, each leaf measure-
ing 19 J in. by 13^ in., written in large and beautifully clear
letters. The passage shown in the Plate is Luke 4. 32 — 5. 6. An
example of a correction may be seen in col. 2., 13 lines from the
bottom, where the singular imperative laxa has been altered by a
corrector to the plural laxate, which corresponds more exactly with
the original Greek. The text is carefully and accurately written,
and it is taken by Wordsworth and White as their first and most
important authority.
Among the other most important MSS. of the Vulgate are the
Codex Fuldensis, written in a.d, 546 for Bishop Victor of Capua,
containing only the Gospels, arranged in a consecutive narrative,
based on the Diatessaron (or Harmony) of Tatian, which was made
about A.D. 170 ; Codex Cavbnsis (ninth century), vmtten in
Spain, and with a Spanish type of text ; Codex Toletanus
(eighth century), very similar to the Cavensis ; the Lindisfarne
Gospels (about a.d. 690), a splendid north English copy, resem-
bling the Codex Amiatinus in text, described more fully on p. 179 ;
the Harleian Gospels (sixth or seventh century), in the British
Museum ; the Stonyhurst Gospels (seventh century), formerly
at Durham, now at Stonyhurst, written in a beautiful little uncial
hand ; and the manuscripts exhibiting the revision by Alcuin,
described in the following chapter. As yet, no complete classifica-
tion of the manuscripts into groups has been effected, and the
relative value of the texts contained in them consequently remains
LATIN VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 173
uncertain. Distinct types of text are recognisable in the manu-
scripts of certain countries, notably those of Ireland and Spain, of
which we shall have more to say in the next chapter ; and it is
fairly clear that the best manuscripts are those which most nearly
resemble the Codex Amiatinus ; but for fuller knowledge we must
wait until Bishop Wordsworth and Mr. White are able to sum up
the results of their patient and long-continued labours.
So we close the list of our witnesses to the original text of the
New Testament. We have traced, so far as we are able, the
history of the Greek text itself ; we have examined the principal
manuscripts of it, and classified them into families, which caiTy
us back far towards the date at which the sacred books were
originally written. Then we have enumerated all the early
translations of the New Testament into other languages, and have
described their several characteristics. With all this mass of
evidence, reinforced by the testimony given on isolated passages by
quotations in the early Christian writers, the trained scholar must
face the task of determining the true reading of each passage in
which the authorities differ. It has been the object of these
chapters to enable every student of the Bible to follow this process
with intelligent interest ; to understand why variations exist in
the text of the Bible, and on what principles and by what means
the true readings are distinguished from the false. In so doing,
we have given a history of the spread of the Bible, both in the
East and :in the West, in the first five or six centuries after the
foundation of Christianity. In the chapters which follow we
shall trace the later fortunes of the Bible in the West and the
origin and history of our own English versions, thus linking
in one continuous chain the original Hebrew and Greek Scrip-
tures with the Bible which we read in our churches and homes
to-day.
( 174 )
CHAPTER IX.
THE VULGATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
THE history of the Bible in Western Europe is for a thousand
years the history of the Vulgate, and of the Vulgate alone.
In the East the Scriptures circulated in Greek,
the Vulgate? ^^ Syriac, in Coptic, in Armenian, in ^thiopic.
In the West, Latin was the only language of
literature. The Latin language was carried by the Koman legion-
aries into Africa, into Gaul, into Spain, into parts of Germany, and
even to distant Britain ; and wherever the Latin language went,
thither, after the conversion of the Empire to Christianity, went
the Latin Bible. Throughout thq period which we know as the
Middle Ages, which may roughly be defined as from a.d. 500 to
1500, almost all books were written in Latin. Latin was the
language in which diflFerent nations communicated with one
another, Latin was the language of the monasteries ; and the
monasteries were the chief centres of the learning which existed
during those centuries. An educated man, speaking Latin, was
a member of a society which included all educated men in Western
Europe, and might be equally at home in Italy, in Gaul, and in
Britain. We shall see in the next chapter that translations of parts
of the Bible into English existed from a very early time ; but
these were themselves translations from the Latin Bible, and for
every copy of the Bible in English there were scores, or even
hundreds, in Latin. The same was the case on the Continent.
Translations were made, in course of time, into French, Italian,
and other languages ; but the originals of these translations were
always Latin Bibles. Every monastery had many copies ; and the
relics of these, the remnant which escaped from the vast destnic-
tions of the Reformation and all the other chances of time, fill our
THE VULGATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES, 175
4
museums and libraries to-day. To the Latin Bible we owe our
Christianity in England ; and in tractag its fortunes during the
Middle Ages, we are but supplying the link between the early
narrative of the spread of the Bible throughout Europe and its
special history in our own islands.
We have said that the form in which the Bible was first made
known to the Latin-speaking people of the West was that of the
«, ,^ Old Latin version. The African form of this
Simnltaneoiis
use of Old Latin version spread along the Roman provinces which
^ ^^ ®' occupied the north of the continent in which it
was produced ; the European variety of it was propagated through-
out Gaul and Spain, while a revised and improved edition was
current in Italy in the fourth century. Then came the Vulgate,
the revised Latin Bible of St, Jerome. Undertaken as it was
at the express request of the Pope, it yet did not win im-
mediate acceptance. Even so great an authority as St, Augustine
objected to the extensive departures from the current version
which Jerome had made in his Old Testament, For some
centuries the Vulgate and the Old Latin existed side by side.
Complete Bibles were then rare. More commonly, a volume
would contain only one group of books, such as the Pentateuch
or the Prophets, the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles ; and it would
very easily happen that the library of any one individual would
have some of these groups according to the older version, and
others according to the Vulgate, Hence we find Christian writers
in the fifth and sixth centuries using sometimes one version and
sometimes the other ; and when complete copies of the Bible came
to be written, some books might be copied from manuscripts of
the one type, and others from those of the other. Special
familiarity with particular books was a strong bar to the accept-
ance of the new text. Thus the Gospels continued to circulate
in the Old Latin much later than the Prophets, and the old ver-
sion of the Psalms was never superseded by Jerome's translation
at all, but continues to this day to hold its place in the received
Bible of the Roman Church.
17(5 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
One unfortunate result followed from this long period of simul-
taneous existence of two different texts, namely the intermixture
of readings from one with those of the other.
mirtwH? Telts. Scribes engaged in copying the Vulgate would,
from sheer familiarity with the older version,
write down its words instead of those of St. Jerome ; and on the
other hand a copyist of the Old Latin would introduce into its
text some of the improvements of the Vulgate. When it is
remembered that this was in days when every copy had to be
written by hand, when the variations of one manuscript were
perpetuated and increased in all those which were copied from it,
it will be easier to understand the confusion which was thus intro-
duced into both versions of the Bible text. It is as though every
copy of our Eevised Version were written by hand, and the copyists
were to substitute, especially in the best known books, such as the
Gospels, the more familiar words of the Authorised Version. Very
soon no two copies of the Bible would remain alike, and the con-
fusion would only be magnified as time went on.
So it was with the Latin Bible in the Middle Ages. The fifth
and sixth centuries are the period during which the old and new
versions existed side by side. In Italy the final acceptance of the
Vulgate was largely due to G-regory the Great (590-604). In
Gaul, in the sixth century, certain books, especially the Prophets,
were habitually known in Jerome's translation ; the rest were still
current mainly in the old. version. In the seventh century the
victory of the Vulgate was general. But it was a sadly mutilated
and corrupted Vulgate which emerged thus victorious from the
struggle ; and the rest of the Middle Ages is the history of suc-
cessive attempts to revise and reform it, and of successive deca-
dences after each revision, untU the invention of printing made it
possible to fix and maintain a uniform text in all copies of the
Bible.
The truest text of the Vulgate was no doubt preserved in Italy.
The worst was unquestionably in Gaul, which we may now begin
to call France. But two countries, situated at different extremes
THE VULGATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. l77
• •- ■* - ' T
of Western Christendom, preserved somewhat distinct types of
m,. ^ 1 ^ j text, which eventually had considerable influence
The Ynlgate in ' *'
Spain and upon the history of the Vulgate. These were
Spain and Ireland. Each was, for a consider-
able period, cut oif from communication with the main body
of Christendom ; Spain, by the Moorish invasion, which for a
time confined the Christian Visigoths to the north-western corner
of the peninsula ; Ireland, by the English conquest of Britain,
which drove the ancient Celtic Church before it, and interposed a
barrier of heathendom between the remains of that Church and
its fellow Christians on the Continent. The consequence of this
isolation was that each Church preserved a distinct type of the
Vulgate text, recognisable by certain special readings in many
passages of the Bible. The Spanish Bible was complete, and its
text, though of very mixed character, contains some good and early
elements ; witness the Codex Cavensis and the Codex Toletanus,
mentioned on p. 172. The Irish Bible as a rule consists of the
Gospels alone, and its text is likewise mixed, containing several
remarkable readings; but its outward form and ornamentation
were of surpassing beauty, and stamped their mark deep on the
history of the Bible for several centuries. Of this, as it especially
concerns our English Bibles, we shall have to speak more at
length.
The seventh century is the most glorious period in the history
of the Irish Church. While Christianity was almost extinct in
England, while the Continent was torn with wars
and plunged in ignorance, the Irish Church was
producing the finest monuments of Christian art, as applied to the
ornamentation of manuscripts, which the world has ever seen, and
was sending forth its missionaries far and wide to call back
Europe and England to the Christian faith. In the seclusion of
their western isle, the Irish devised and perfected a style of
decoration, as applied to manuscripts, of absolutely unique beauty
and elaboration. The special feature of this style is its extra-
ordinarily intricate system of interlacing patterns, combined and
S2764. M
178 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
^^ ■»"■ ' ^^^mmm^mm ' ■■.■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ^ ^» ■■■ , ii. ■■■■— !■,■■ i
continued with marvellous precision over a whole page throughout
the pattern of a huge initial letter. Looked at from a little
distance, a page of one of these manuscripts resembles a harmoni-
ous mosaic or enamelled pattern in soft and concordant colours.
Examine it closely, even with a magnifying glass, and the eye
wearies itself in following the intricacy of its pattern, and the
hand strives in vain to reproduce its accuracy even for a few
inches of its course. The use of gold gives to later illuminations
a greater splendour of appearance at first sight ; but no other style
shows a quarter of the inexhaustible skill and patient devotion
which is the glory of the Irish school and of their Anglo-Saxon
pupils.
For those who are acquainted with illuminated manuscripts,
this style of decoration is a striking monument of the introduction
MSS ^^ Christianity into northern England from the
introduced into Irish Church. While Augustine, the delegate of
' * the Koman Church, was winning his way in
Kent, Irish missionaries had planted a settlement in the island
of lona, from which they preached the Gospel in southern Scot-
land ; and in the year 635 Oswald, who had learnt Christianity
while an exile at lona, sent to beg that a priest might be sent
to him to aid in the conversion of his newly-won kingdom of
Northumbria. Aidan was dispatched in answer to his call, to
become bishop of Lindisfarne ; and in Aidan's steps came a great
band of Irish and Scotch missionaries, who spread themselves
abroad in the land and planted Christianity there firmly and
finally. But in coming to England they did not forget the art
which they had learnt at home. In lona had perhaps been
produced the most splendid example of Irish illumination in
existence, the Book of Kells, now the special glory of the library
of Trinity College, Dublin ; but in England they executed other
manuscripts scarcely less magnificent, predominant among which
is the beautiful Lindisfarne Gospels, a page of which is repro-
duced in Plate XX,
; But whilQ th^ decoj^tion of the north English manuscripts wa^i
PLATE XX.
The Lindisfabbe Gi
iOriffinal lite, ISi in. k 10*n.)
THE VULGATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. ' 179
wholly derived from Ireland, their text had, in great measure,
Texts of EnffUsli * ^ii^erent origin, and was of a very superior
KESS. derived quality. We have seen that the manuscript which
contains the purest text of the Vulgate now
extant, the Codex Amiatinus, was written at Jarrow or Wearmouth
shortly before the year 716. A few years earlier, the book of the
Lindisfame Gospels was written at Lindisfame, and its text shows
a marked aifinity to that of the Codex Amiatinus. Now the
source of the Lindisfame text can be proved with practical cer-
tainty. It is a copy of the four Gospels, written in a fine and
bold uncial hand, with magnificent ornamentation at the begin-
ning of each book. The main text is that of the Latin Vulgate ;
but between the lines a later hand has written a paraphrase of
the Latin into the primitive English which we commonly call
Anglo-Saxon. Of this paraphrase more will be said in the next
chapter ; at present our concern with it lies in the fact that the
author of it has added at the end of the volume a history of
the manuscript. He tells us that it was written by Eadfrith,
Bishop of Lindisfame, in honour of St. Cuthbert, the great saint
of Lindisfame and Northumbria, who died in a.d. 687 ; that it
was covered and " made firm on the outside " by Ethilwald ;
that Billfrith the anchorite wrought in smith's work the orna-
ments on its cover ; and that he himself, Aldred, " an unworthy
and most miserable priest," wrote the English translation between
the lines. "We know, therefore, that the volume was written
shortly after the year 687. Now before each Gospel is placed
a list of festivals on which lessons were read from that book ;
and, strange as it may seem at first sight, it has been quite
recently shown that these festivals are unquestionably festivals
of the Church of Naples. What is still more remarkable, this
strange fact can be completely explained. When Theodore of
Tarsus was sent by Pope Vitalian to England in 669 to be
Archbishop of Canterbury, he brought with him, as his com-
panion and adviser, one Hadrian, the abbot of a monastery
near Naples. Theodore visited the whole of England, including-
M 2
180 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPTS.
Northumbria ; and there can be no reasonable doubt that the
Lindisfarne Gospels were copied from a manuscript which Abbot
Hadrian had brought with him from Italy. Here, then, we have
the clue to the origin of the excellent texts of the Vulgate found
in these north English manuscripts. There can be no doubt that
the Codex Amiatinus, though written in England, derived its
text from Italy, and carries on the best traditions of the Italian
Vulgate.
The plate opposite this page is a much reduced copy of the first
words of the Gospel of St. Luke in the Lindisfarne book ; and even
in this reduction the beauty and elaboration of
'^'^ G^vels!^"" ^^^ intricately interlaced design which composes
the initial Q can be fairly seen. Between the
lines of the original writing is the English paraphrase, in a minute
cursive hand, without pretensions to ornament. The history of
the MS. after its completion deserves a word of mention ; for a
special romance attaches to it. Written in honour of St. Cuthbert,
it was preserved at Lindisfarne along with the Saint's body ; but
in the year 875 an invasion of the Danes drove the monks to carry
away both body and book. For several years they wandered to
and fro in northern England ; then, in despair, they resolved to
cross over to Ireland. But the Saint was angry at being taken
from his own land, and a great storm met the boat as it put out ;
and as the boat lay on its side in the fury of the storm the precious
volume was washed overboard and lost. Kealising the Saint's dis-
pleasure, the monks put back, in a state of much penitence and
sorrow for their loss ; but at last the Saint encouraged one of them
in a dream to search for the book along the shore, and on a day
of exceptionally low tide they found it, practically uninjured by its
inmiersion. The story is told by the chronicler Simeon of Durham,
writing about 1104 ; and it need not be dismissed as a mere
mediaeval legend. Precious volumes, according to the Irish prac-
tice, were carried in special cases or covers, which might well
defend them from much damage from the sea ; and it is certain
that several pages of this book (which was regularly known in
THE VUL&ATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES, 181
mediaeval times as "the book of St. Cuthbert which fell into the
sea") show to this day the marks of injury from water which
has filtered in from without. The subsequent history of the
MS. may be briefly told. Always accompanying the Saint's
body, it found homes at Chester-le-Street, Durham, and finally at
Lindisfame once more. At the dissolution of the monasteries
it was cast abroad into the world and stripped of its jewelled
covers ; but was rescued by Sir Eobert Cotton, and passed with
his collection into the British Museum, where it now rests in
peace and safety.
But this is a digression. The point which we have established
is the spread of the Vulgate from Ireland to northern England,
and the formation of an excellent text there by
EnguJhTcholar- i^^^ans of copies brought from Italy. During the
ship in 8th and eighth and ninth centuries northern England was
9tli centuries.
the most flourishing home of Christian scholarship
in western Europe. Wearmouth and Jarrow were the head-quarters
of the school ; and the great names in it are those of Bede and
Alcuin. Bede (a.d. 674-735), the first great historian of England,
lived and died at Jarrow. Of him we shall have more to say in
the next chapter, in connection with the earliest translations of the
Bible into English. Alcuin (a.d. 735-805), on the other hand, is
intimately connected with the most important stage of the history
of the Vulgate in the Middle Ages.
While Ireland and England were taking the lead in promoting
the study and circulation of the Bible, the Bible in France was
sinking deeper and deeper into the confusion and
T)y^C^lwna^e corruption which have been described above. No
to revise Vulgate one who has not worked among manuscripts can
know the endless degrees of deterioration to which
a much-copied text can sink, or realise the hopelessness of main-
taining for long a high or uniform standard of correctness.
Nothing but the strong hand of a reformer could check the pro-
gress of decay ; and that was at last found in the great emperor,
Charlemagne. From the beginning of his reign this monarch
182r OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANtTSCBIPTS.
manifested great concern for the reformation of the text of the
Scriptures, He forbad them to be copied by inexperienced boys
at schools ; and when he cast his eyes round for a scholar who
might undertake the revision of the corrupted text, he naturally
looked to England, and there found the man whom he required
in the person of Alcuin of York, the most distinguished scholar of
the day. Alcuin was invited to France; was attached to the court
at Aix and made master of the schools which Charlemagne estab-
lished in his palace, with the title and revenues of the abbot of St.
Martin of Tours ; and subsequently retiring to Tours, inaugurated
there a great school of copyists and scholars, and there received
the commission of the emperor to prepare a revised and corrected
edition of the Latin Bible.
Two families of texts were then widely represented in France,
the Spanish and the Irish. These, coming respectively from south
and north, met in the region of the Loire, and
vSgate! ^^^^ ^^^^ known to Alcuin. In 796 we find him
sending to York for manuscripts, showing how
highly he valued the text preserved in the copies of northern
England ; in 801 the revision was complete, and on Christmas
Day in that year a copy of the restored Vulgate was presented by
him to Charlemagne. We have evidence of several copies having
been made under Alcuin's own direction during the short remain-
der of his life, and although none of these has actually come
down to us, we yet possess several manuscripts which contain
Alcuin's text more or less perfectly preserved. The best of these
is the Codex Yallicellianus, containing the whole Bible, now in the
library of the Oratory adjoining the Church of Sta. Maria in
Yallicella, at Eome, but written at Tours in the ninth century,
probably in or soon after the life time of Alcuin. Another fine
copy (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10546, sometimes known as the Bible
of Charlemagne), likewise containing the whole Bible, may be seen
in one of the show-cases in the British Museum, and of this a
reproduction is given in Plate XXL It is an excellent specimen
of the style of writing introduced in France during the reign of
PI «^l,„uf£^i=i^quj:(^«(J S^iSiiSR.' ■ """^
( li«Jin (T:fV»ir«-ftuLOcl«-irmr>icLc-icf-.quiiturnon *
I ^nlitlcccenoiiimufljtiT'idiliymtirnAcofyiiirJm dtti I
^ rtT^CI""**^^*'l«Ticxt^»nuncLrmrt«iuic/-ftlttan*"lHnp
'*'''^*^<:jnwlKw-«cfa>"c7niuifi^LiaJmAtufVi(uiJ«rfo I
C(i^ £fn-n Ttim crr^vcintdhmcmtoq no JtriafljamfV^
ALCDiir's VcLQAii — 3th Cent.
(Or^aoIrt«ii/'I>iiff»,»nntHH«.,- nf fart ^produced Bi<«. nit
THE VULGATE IN ^SE MIDDLE AGES. ^ 18^
Charlemagne, the special head-quarters of which was the school of
Tours, over which Alcuin presided. It marked a new departure
in the history of Latin writing, and it was this style of writing
that indirectly formed the model from which our modern printed
types are taken. The MS. in question is written in double
colunms on a page measuring 20 inches by 14J. Here only part
of one column can be shown (and that much reduced in scale),
containing 1 John 4. 16 — 6. 10, and it will be seen that the famous
interpolation in verse 8 relating to the Three Witnesses is here
absent. As stated in the Variorum Bible, this text is found in no
Greek manuscript, with the exception of two, in which it is mani-
festly inserted from the Latin. It is a purely Latin interpolation,
though one of early origin, and it finds no place in Alcuin's
corrected Vulgate. There the text runs, " For there are three that
bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood ; and the three
are one."
The zeal of Charlemagne for the Bible was not manifested in his
encouragement of Alcuin's revision alone. From his reign date a
series of splendid manuscripts of the Gospels,
Gospels of written in gold letters upon white or purple vel-
ar emagne. ^^^^ ^^^ adorned with magnificent decorations.
The inspiration of these highly decorated copies is clearly derived
from the Irish and north English manuscripts of which we have
spoken above, and it is probable that here again Alcuin was the
principal agent in carrying the English influence into the Conti-
nent. It has at least been shown to be probable that the centre
from which these " Golden Gospels," as they are sometimes called,
took their rise, was in the neighbourhood of the Ehine, where
Alcuin was settled as master of the palace schools before his
retirement to Tours ; and the earliest examples of this style appear
to have been written during the time of his residence in that
region. In any case they are a splendid evidence of the value in
which the sacred volume was held, and they show how the tradi-
tion of the Irish illumination was carried abroad into France. The
characteristic interlacings of the Irish style are plainly evident,
184 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
but the extent to which they are employed has diminished ; and
although the profuse employment of gold lends them a gorgeous-
ness which their predecessors do not possess, yet the skill and
labour bestowed upon them cannot be ranked so high, and the
reader who will compare the best examples of either class will
probably agree that, while both are splendid, the Books of Kells and
of Lindisfarne are even more marvellous as works of art than the
Golden Gospels of Charlemagne. The texts of these Gospels differ
from those of the Tours manuscripts in being closer to the Anglo-
Saxon type, and this is quite in accordance with the theory which
assigns their origin to the influence of Alcuin, but at a period
earlier than that of his thorough revision of the Vulgate. Manu-
scripts of this class continued to be written under the successors
of Charlemagne, especially in the reign of Charles the Bald
(843-881) ; but after that date they disappear, and a less gorgeous
style of illumination takes the place of these elaborate and beauti-
ful volumes.
It was not only under the immediate direction of Charlemagne
that the desire for an improved text of the Vulgate was active.
Almost simultaneously with Alcuin, Theodulf,
^Th^^di^^ °^ Bishop of Orleans, was undertaking a revision
upon different lines. Theodulf was probably a
Visigoth by birth, a member, that is, of the race of Goths which
had occupied Spain, and from which the Spaniards are in part
descended. He came from the south of France, and hence all
his associations were with the districts on either side of the
Pyrenees. Thus, while Alcuin represented the Irish tradition of
the Bible text, Theodulf embodied the traditions of Spain. At
Orleans, however, of which see he was bishop about the year 800,
he stood at the meeting place of the two streams ; and his revised
Vulgate, though mainly Spanish in type, shows also traces of Irish
influence, as well as of the use of good Alcuinian MSS. His
revision is very unequal in value, and its importance is by no
means so great as that of Alcuin's work. Undertaken apart from
the influence of Charlemagne, it wag never generally adopted, and
THE VULGATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 185
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■- ■ ■ ■ ■ Mil ■ 1 I ,1 1 ■ ^1 11 ■- ■ 1 » I III
now survives in c5omparatively few manuscripts, the best of which
is in the National Library at Paris.*
One other school of Biblical study at this period deserves notice.
Not far from the Lake, of Constance lies the monastery of St. Gall,
now a comparatively obscure and unvisited spot^
^Stt^o! °^ ^^^ formerly a great centre of study and of pen-
manship. At this day it is almost, if not quite,
unique in retaining still in the nineteenth century the libraiy
which made it famous in the ninth. At a still earlier period it
was a focus of Irish missionary effort. Irish monks made their
way to its walls, bringing with them their own peculiar style of
writing ; and manuscripts in the Irish style still exist in some
numbers in the library of St. Gall. The style was taken up and
imitated by the native monks ; and in the ninth century, under
the direction of the scribe and scholar Hartmut, the school of
St. Gall was definitely established as a prominent centre of activity
in the work of copying MSS. His successors, towards the end of
the century, developed a distinct style of writing, which became
generally adopted in the districts bordering on the Ehine. The
text of these St. Gall manuscripts, on the other hand, looks
southwards for its home, not north, and is derived from Milan,
with some traces of Spanish influence, instead of from Ireland.
Thus in the ninth century a healthy activity prevailed in many
quarters, directed towards the securing of a sound text of the
Bible. But permanence in goodness cannot be
Subsequent maintained so long as books are copied by hand
ciebeiriOTftvioiit
alone. The errors of copyists undo the labours
of scholars, and in a shoit time chaos has come again. The
Alcuinian text was corrupted with surprising rapidity, and the
private labours of Theodulf had even less lasting an effect.
The decadence of the house of Charlemagne was reflected in
the decadence of the Bible text which he had striven to purify
* The British Museum possesses a copy (Add. MS. 24124), known as
the Bible of St. Hubert, which is at present exhibited in one of the show-
cases.
186 OUB- BIBLE AND T^E ANCIENT MANU8CBIPTS.
and establish. The invasion of the Normans broke up the school
of Tours, as the invasion of the Danes broke up the school of
Wearmouth and Jarrow in Northumbria. In these wars and
tumults scholarship went to the ground. A few individuals, such
as our Norman Archbishop Lanfranc, tried to check the growing
corruption of the Bible text, but with only temporary effect. It
was not until four centuries had passed away that a real and
effectual attempt was made to restore the Vulgate to something
like its ancient form.
England had led the way in the ninth century; but in the
thirteenth the glory belongs almost entirely to France. It is to
the influence of the French king, St! Louis, and
tS^iaTcen^. *^® scholarship of the newly established Uni-
versity of Paris that the revision of the thirteenth
century is due. Those who are acquainted with the manuscripts
of the Vulgate in any of our great libraries will know what a
remarkable proportion of them were written in this century. The
small, compressed writing, arranged in double columns, with little
decoration except simple coloured initials, becomes very jpamiliar
to the student of manuscripts, and impresses him with a sense
of the great activity which must have prevailed at that period in
multiplying copies of the Bible. For us at the present day the
principal result of the labours of the Paris doctors is the division
of our Bible into chapters. Divisions of both Old and New
Testaments into sections of various sizes existed from very early
times ; but our modern chapter-division was the work of Stephen
Langton, then a doctor of the University of Paris, afterwards
Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the barons in the struggle
which gave birth to Magna Charta. The texts of these Parisian
Bibles are not, it must be admitted, of any very remarkable
excellence ; but they are very important in the history of the
Vulgate, because it is virtually upon them that the printed text of
the Bible of the Eoman Church is based to this day.
We are going, ahead too fast, §,nd shall have to retrace our steps
in the next chapter ; but it will be convenient to conclude -here^
I'lnnpn-iilwInTC* (tlif lUie Uniffi"
jSi'lIpumpiiiininiiciiueitlumnmue
l! BBnimanbu'wiilifflEBaf abifc
■ s biiina Bm tadanu lupic aifacie.
i Ciioip tmra.^ luir-b bita r luc.
I Ct DiDitinutluicmrpiahtoniiin
9 QiuiOt ImBnntimliciB-aiptllauinii
3 lumnBinnntmiljcaontitaiLiftiifii
i (QifiDdtntimBiu Dire onus, dm
1 nuomotuB. jiat[imiflinraiiij[imr=
T |iiQiii|Uiiru:naiuitiataquaflaba<
f qui8.&^taniB&niianutmi:Iiiui=
riHeaquaaqutnaDiliibfinuiiiuia'
n ill)1)iiB qut rmai Gipti Smiamm'
nmnBidum rit iia. i) aminup nua
BaHiiuinu[ifu:i&ituniiftinr|inc
R Dum DiralhuiiDuo.fiituamiOt'
UB.CaiitiiFgniiutaqutqutruEiaUi
DiniinlorumDnutiapniateTiDa.
£ Eaitum tH ita. Ct ooraurr ntuii an '
mun ntani : togngaiuuufq; aquas
apflauir maaa . 6 uiBuams nn
fri bonn- (tait.£ttitnnniiiia l|(nid
aonritcai Qbqis biitum iuRa maf
tnp:nmiB fnnm in fcntnpo lit tuira:
ntWm.fttibmtSiu. frpTBulic
ma bnliam Dirmnni a [anmmn &■■
nm mad onuB rimiignuqi^oiB
bulOn^cB uiiuqS'qi rDnmtt&Qm
[pmE (iia. b uiQu DmB tp [ffnlonii:
It ftilii furtpm tr want Olio irmuB,
Cinnn nut OniB . fiant luntmana
in toomim nil - 1 DimDai Uimi fl[
Ba&\ lini in Ci^ia t ttpata-i Din 1
aniuie : inlmtariD biniamaa tdi b
mtrndt miCtMutDiut-rEliqi
Dtntniilitailnfa nugna:liinuan
m^^ar pittit Biriit Innnatr inin-*'
^PTO nota IWlaB-i pfiiit ma in
fttmanMDBliiuiuatmtriiBnttiB:
piflhn bin at nodi:i DiuiiiETc lucna
acraicbKK. ft wtiit cc* q< dtcttiinu:
n Fodii f iripni It ni a tir Dam quon^.
CiDt mom OniB . pmtnuaat onnt
icpDk antmt uiutfws tf oolanlt uip
traa in : fid) Bnnamcm dLCttaunqi
litiiDmEBtantiiji'CtDinntaniniam
unanuaii{)nunabilnti qM|]niBui&
lani oqut in Ifitate runonciinntua<
Mi Inuntiu BiiniB luii. ft mou Cr-
ue 01 tflft bonn : bnirttiiini; li BimiB.
Citbut a imdliiiltnimiiu-ii nplm a
quOB ninne:auiti]'> miilnplinniui
rupci tnra nL& Gidu c uif lite 1 niant
DitQ quiuB . £uii quatp aaia.pa)>
Dmat itTtj muma uiunimu tn (Rnt'
n r[Ui:ii[iiimia ^t npnt i ii- 1 tnSiae at'
n fituuDul{[aEBruaG.fLidiiEna.6
&rii DniG btbneiiaT iiiEia Ipmra lui
a«:iuiniiiia i amm ttnnlr acn tn gi-
DCit fuo . £t uiBK OniB qi d&i bonu:
naiL^aaainfbinnntaDFinagiui
Qiiiiip iqiiili qS nitnuf im[aj& mO'
uit imiB d a nunf an nua guiI It fniii'
lnut]iiuruani:ai)riuaginmttDt(ia>
iiitiUinnialhiluti&minaniauuna.
. ,— - nrrulmtEtiam-it
[ubiniT iaui;iDQiiiiiiBniiiii piTtdna
maiiO'iuiilanlibuaiTl]:) unhictlit
ontniaiilnieqiit luoimnutrugEnEi.
iMiuqtliniB.CttfDtiiiuobiBDnmt
tmbam aSimmii [mim fim mem-
EtmuiiralionaqurtBbiT iroiininia
fnnett gcmnB lin : u t fi nr u o bie f ara-
inj^BaianabuBraiTciuitnaaliicit
ahiDniuR&BqinO'.^urmiBra'iti
quitniBfaiiminmii^":inbahatao
utrtmbu.!fcfii[tur":i).Cil)in|ttiiie
^ niniaqurfttn.it. .(nainaiDtbnmi
Tub Mazahtk Sidle — a.d. 1456.
{Original tize, 15 tn. x 11 itt.)
THE VULGATE IK THE MIDDLE AGES. 187
the history of the Latin Bible. It has been made evident that, so
long as Bibles continued to be copied by hand,
laS^nSes. ^^ stability or uniformity of text could be main-
tained. As with the Greek Bible, so with the
Latin, the later copies become progressively worse and worse. Hence
the enormous importance of the invention of printing, which made
it possible to fix and stereotype a form of text, and secure that it
should be handed on without substantial change from one genera-
tion to another. The first book printed in Europe, it is pleasant to
know, was the Latin Bible, — ^the splendid Mazarin Bible (so-called
from the fact that the first copy which attracted much attention in
later times was that in the library of Cardinal Mazarin) issued by
Gutenberg in 1456, of which a copy may be seen exhibited in the
British Museum, and from which the first page is here given in
reduced facsimile (Plate XXIL). But this edition, and many
others which followed it, merely reproduced the current form of
text, without revision or comparison with the best manuscripts.
Ximenes and Erasmus, the first editors of the Greek printed Bible,
also bestowed much labour on the Latin text ; but the first really
critical edition was that prepared by Stephanus in 1528, and
revised by himself in 1538-40. No authoritative edition, how-
ever, was forthcoming until the accession to the Papal chair of
Sixtus V. in 1585.
Immediately on his accession, this energetic Pope appointed a
commission to revise the text of the Bible, and in the work of
revision he himself took an active part. Good
Bible!"** manuscripts were used as authorities, includ-
ing notably the Codex Amiatinus ; and in 1590
the completed work issued from the press in three volumes.
The text resembles generally that of Stephanus, on which it was
evidently based. But hardly had Pope Sixtus declared his edition
to be the sole authentic and authorised form of the Bible, when he
died ; and one of the first acts of Clement Till., on his accession
in 1592, was to call in all the copies of the Sixtine Bible. There
is no doubt that the Sixtine edition was full of errors. The
188 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
press had been very imperfectly revised, and a number of mistakes,
discovered after the sheets had been struck off, were corrected by
means of hand -stamped type. It is believed, however, that
Clement was also incited to this attack on his predecessor's
memory by the Jesuits, whom Sixtus had offended.
® Efwe^ "^* I^ ^^y ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ remains that Clement caused
a new edition to be prepared, which appeared
towards the end of 1592. This edition was not confined to a
removal of the errors of the press in the Sixtine volumes, but
presents a considerably altered text, differing, it has been estimated,
from its predecessor in no less than 8000 readings. Here at last
we reach the origin of the text of the Latin Bible current to-day ;
for the Clementine edition, sometimes appearing under the name
of Clement, sometimes (to disguise the appearance of difference
between two Popes) under that of Sixtus, was constituted the one
authorised text of the Vulgate, from which no single variation is
permitted.
It cannot be pretended that the Clementine text is satisfactory
from the point of view of history or scholarship. The alterations
which differentiate it from the Sixtine edition, except where they
simply remove an obvious blunder, are, for the most part, no im-
provement ; and in any case, the circumstances of the time did
not permit so full and scientific an examination of all the evidence
as is possible now. The task of revising the Vulgate text in
accordance with modern knowledge has, however, been left almost
entirely to scholars outside the pale of the Eoman Church. Of
these the most conspicuous have been Richard Bentley in the past,
Bishop Wordsworth, Mr. White, M. Berger, and Dr. Corssen at
the present time. It may be that in the future the leaders of the
Eoman Church will be willing to make use of the labours of these
careful and accomplished scholars, and issue for the benefit of all
who use the Latin Bible a text which shall reproduce, as nearly as
may be, the original words of the version prepared by St. Jerome
fifteen hundred years ago.
( 189 )
CHAPTER X.
THE ENGLISH MANUSCRIPT BIBLES.
WE take another step forward in our story, and narrow still
further the circle of our inquiry. It is no longer the
original text of the Bible with which we have to deal, nor even the
Bible of Western Europe. Our step is a step nearer home ; our
subject is the Bible of our own country and in our own language.
For nearly a thousand years, from the landing of Augustine to the
Eeformation, the official Bible, so to speak, the Bible of the Church
services and of monastic usage, was the Latin Vulgate. But al-
though the monks and clergy learnt Latin, and a knowledge of
Latin was the most essential element of an educated man's culture,
it was never the language of the common people. To them the
Bible, if it came at all, must come in English, and from almost
the earliest times there were churchmen and statesmen whose care
it was that, whether by reading it for themselves, if they were
able, or by hearing it read to them, the common people should have
at least the more important parts of the Bible accessible to them
in their own language. For twelve hundred years one may fairly
say that the English people has never been entirely without an
English Bible.
It was in the year 597 that Augustine landed in Kent, and
brought back to that part of the island the Christianity which had
been driven out of it by our Saxon, Jute, and
'^f ^gl^fi^'d?"^ Engle forefathers. In 634, Birinus, a Eoman
priest from Gaul, converted the West Saxons ;
and in 635 came Aidan from lona to preach Christianity in
Northumbria, as related in the last chapter. Soon after the
middle of the century all England had heard the Word of Christ,
190 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
proclaimed by word of mouth by the missionaries of Rome or of
Ireland. At first there would be no need of a written Bible for
the common people. As in the days of Christ and His Apostles,
men heard the "Word of God by direct preaching. Most of them
could not read, and the enthusiasm of a convert requires personal
instruction rather than study of a written book. Yet it was got
Th Bibi ^^^^ before the story of the Bible made its ap-
paraphrase of pearance in English literature. In the abbey of
the Lady Hilda at Whitby was a brother named
Caedmon, who had no skill in making songs, and would therefore
leave the table when his turn came to sing something for the
pleasure of the company. But one night when he had done so,
and had lain down in the stable and there fallen asleep, there
stood One by him in a dream, and said, " Caedmon, sing Me some-
thing." And he answered, " I cannot sing, and for that reason I
have left the feast." But He said, '* Nevertheless, thou canst sing
to Me." " What," said he, " must I sing ? " And He said,
"Sing the beginning of created beings." So he sang; and the
poem of Caedmon is the first native growth of English litera-
ture. It is a paraphrase in verse of the Bible narrative, from
both Old and New Testaments, written in that early dialect
which we call Anglo-Saxon, but which is really the ancient form
of English.
Caedmon'fl BibLe paraphrase was written about 670, a generation
after the coming of Aidan ; and another generation had not
passed away before part of the Bible had been
iSSehau ^ actually translated into English. Aldhelm,
Bishop of Sherborne, who died in 709, translated
the Psalms, and thereby holds the honour of having been the first
translator of the Bible into our native tongue. It is uncertain
whether we still possess any part of his work, or not. There is a
version of the Psalms in Anglo-Saxon, preserved in a manuscript
at Paris, which has been supposed to be the Psalter oi Aldhelm ;
but the manuscript was only written in the eleventh century,
and the language of the translation seems to contain forms
THE ENGLISH MANUSCBIPT jBlBLES. 191
which had not com ^ into existence' in the time at which Aldhelnj
lived. If, therefore, this version, which gives the first fifty
Psalms in prose and the rest in verse, really belongs to Aldhelm
at all^ the language must have been somewhat modified in later
copies.
The next translator of whom we hear is the greatest name in
the history of the early English Church. Bede (674-735) was
the glory of the Northumbrian school, which, as
we have seen, was the most shining light of
learning in western Europe during the eighth century. In
addition to his greatest work, the History of the English Churchy
he wrote commentaries on many of the books of the Bible. These
works, which were intended primarily for scholars, were written
in Latin ; but we know that he also took care that the Scriptures
might be faithfully delivered to the common people in their own
tongue. He translated the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, as the
first essentials of the Christian faith ; and at the time of his
death he was engaged on a translation of the Gospel of St. John.
The story of its completion, told by his disciple, Cuthbert, is
well known, but it never can be omitted in a history of the
English Bible. On the Eve of Ascension Day, 735, the great
scholar lay dying, but dictating, while his strength allowed, to
his disciples ; and they wrote down the translation of the Oospel
as it fell from his lips, being urged by him to write quickly,
since he knew not how soon his Master would call him. On
Ascension morning one chapter alone remained unfinished, and
the youth who bad been copying hesitated to press his master
further; but he would not rest. "It is easily done," he said,
"take thy pen and write quickly." Failing strength and the
last farewells to the brethren of the monastery prolonged the
task, till at eventide the boy reminded his master: "There is
yet one sentence unwritten, dear master." "Write it quickly,"
was the answer ; and it was written at his word. "It is written
now," said the boy. " You speak truth," answered the saint, " it
is finished now,^' Then he bade tbew l9»y him on the pavement
192 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
- ■ ...
of his cell, sapporting his head in their hands ; and as he repeated
the Gloria, with the name of the Holy Spirit on his lips, he
passed quietly away.
Of Bede's translation no trace or vestige now remains ; nor
are we more fortunate when we pass from the great scholar of
the early Church to the great statesman, King Alfred. Alfred,
by far the finest name among the early sovereigns of England,
careful for the moral and intellectual welfare of his people, did
not neglect the work which Aldhelm and Bede had begun. He
prefixed a translation of the Ten Commandments and other ex-
tracts from the Law of Moses to his own code of laws, and
translated, or caused to be translated, several other parts of the
Bible. He is said to have been engaged on a version of the
Psalms at the time of his death ; but no copy of his work
has survived, although a manuscript (really of later date) now
in the British Museum,* and containing the Latin text with an
English translation between the lines, has borne the name of
King Alfred's Psalter. Still, though nothing has come down to
us from Bede or Alfred, the tradition is valuable, as assuring
us of the existence of EDglish Bibles, or parts of Bibles, in the
eighth and ninth centuries. From the end of this period we have
an actual example of an English Psalter still extant ; for a manu-
script in the British Museum, containing the Psalms in Latin,
written about A-D. 700 (though formerly supposed to have belonged-
to St. Augustine himself), has had a word-for-word translation
in the Kentish dialect inserted about the end of the ninth century.
In the tenth century we stand on firmer ground, for, in addition
to similar interlinear translations, we reach the date of independent
versions, known to us from copies still extant in several of our
public libraries.
It is indeed possible that the Gospels were rendered into
English earlier than the tenth century, since one would naturally
expect them to be the first part of the Bible which a trans-
* Stowe, MS. 2, of the eleyenth century*
THE ENGLISH MANU8CB1PT BIBLES, 1&8
lator would wish to make accessible to the common people ;
but we have no actual mention or proof of the
Interlinear existence of such a translation before that date,
glosses.
As in the case of the Psalter, the earliest form
in which the Gospels appear in the English language is that of
glosses, or word-for-word translations written between the lines
of Latin manuscripts ; and the oldest copy of such a gloss now
in existence is that of which mention has already been made in
describing the Lindisfarne book of the Gospels. That magnifi-
cent volume was originally written in Latin about the year 700 ;
and about 950 Aldred the priest wrote his Anglo-Saxon para-
phrase between the lines of the Latin text. Some words of this
translation may be seen in the facsimile given in Plate XX. ; and
we may regard them with a special interest as belonging to the
oldest existing copy of the Gospels in the English language. The
dialect in which this translation is written is naturally North-
umbrian, which differed in some respects from that spoken in
other parts of the island. Another gloss of the Gospels is found
in a manuscript at Oxford, known as the ' Eush worth MS. It
is of somewhat later date than the Lindisfarne book, and
in the Gospels of St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John it follows
that manuscript closely ; but the gloss on St. Matthew is in
the Old Mercian dialect, which was spoken in the central part
of England.
These glosses were, no doubt, originally made in order to assist
the missionaries and preachers who had to instruct their con-
The Go 1 gregations in the message of the Gospel ; and
of the lOth cen- the same must have been the object of the
earliest independent translations of the Bible
books. Few, if any, of the ordinary EngUsh inhabitants would
be able to read; but the monks and priests who preached to
them would interpret the Bible to them in their own tongue,
and their task would be rendered easier by the existence of
written English Gospels. We know, moreover, that during the
latter part of the Anglo-Saxon period, the culture and scholarship
S27M. N
194 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
— — ■ ■ 4
of the English clergy declined greatly, so that the preachers them-
selves yrould often be unable to understand the Latin Bible, and
needed the assistance of an English version. It is in the south that
we first meet with such a translation of the Gospels existing by
itself, apart from the Latin text on which it was based. There
are in all six copies of this translation now extant, two at Oxford,
two at Cambridge, and two in the British Museum. All these are
closely related to one another, being either actually copied from
one another, or taken from a common original without much
variation. The oldest is a manuscript in the library of Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, which was written by one -^Ifric, at
Bath, about the year 1000. There can be no doubt that the
original translation, of which these are copies, was made in the
south-west of England, in the region known as Wessex, not later
than about the middle of the tenth century. It may have been
made earlier, but we have no evidence that it was so, and the
total absence of such evidence must be taken as an unfavourable
sign.
In Plate XXIII. is given a facsimile of one of the British
Museum copies of this first independent version of the Gospels
in English. The manuscript, which was written in the early part
of the twelfth century, has an interest of its own, even apart
from its contents; and its history is partly told by the inscrip-
tions which it bears on its first page, here reproduced. This
page contains the beginning of St. Mark's Gospel, which holds
the first place in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, and is headed
"Text[us] iiii. evangelior[um]," Le, "The text of the four Gos-
pels." To the right of this are the words " aug~. d xvi. G^ IIII.'*
Below is the name "Thomas Cantuarien[sis] " and the figures
" 1 a. xiv " ; and at the bottom of the page (not included in the
plate) is the signature " Lumley." What do all these inscriptions
tell us of the history of the MS. ? They tell us that it belonged
to the great monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury, in the
library of which it bore the press-mark " D[istinctio] xvi,
|Gr[r]a[dus] IV " ; that after the dissolution of the monasteries
PLATE XSIII.
oiUHcaangeUi'ftaitiiiit mardi. €5«r iwot'
suiA Tna anxt -re;
Jani [¥ft«i«y5anpmif Bjiilreniif pgr.iw^
pttrre htff^fef.johaitticrjaf cnwOvnc '
['<top»fcTe>lVtn«j1'<»bnia|Uj.»-.-;|xriMii ft»
Tt j;tp»UO&r on lojiiiaw ' ' ■
Br. hyopA _
Enclisu Gospels of tub Tekio Cbstubv— 12tii Cej
(Orijttnal «je qf page, 8Hb. x 6iia.; of part reprodueed, 4Hn
THE ENGLISH MANUSCRIPT BIBLES. 195
* •
it passed into the possession of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer,
whose secretary wrote his name (in a hand closely resembling
the prelate's own writing) at the head of the page ; that after
Cranmer's death it was acquired, with many others of his books,
by Henry Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, from whom it descended
to his son-in-law, John, Lord Lumley. Lumley died in 1609,
and his library was bought for Henry, Prince of Wales, eldest
son of James I. Thereby this volume entered the Royal Library,
in which it bore the press-mark 1 A xiv. ; and when that library
was presented to the nation by George II. in 1757, it passed into
the keeping of the British Museum, then newly established ; and
there, retaining the same press-mark, it stiU remains. So much
history may a few notes of ownership convey to us.
Some readers may be curious to see the form of the language in
which this first English Bible is written. It is unlike enough to
our modern English, yet it is its true and direct ancestor. After
quoting the first words of the Gospel in Latin, the translation
begins thus : " Her ys Godspelles angin, halendes cristes godes
Eune. Swa awriten ys on thaswitegan bee isaiam. Nu ic asende
mine aengel beforan thinre ansyne. Se gegarewath thinne weg
beforan the. Clepigende stefen on tham westene gegarwiath
drihtnes weg. Doth rihte his sytbas. lohannes waes on westene
fulgende & bodiende. Dsedbote fulwyht on synna forgyfenysse."
This specimen will probably be enough for those who have no
special acquaintance with Anglo-Saxon. Shortly after the date at
which this version of the Gospels was probably
tam^nt^if -Elfric ^^^^' ^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^' ^Ifric, Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, translated a considerable
part of the Old Testament, namely, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges,
Kings, Esther, Job, Judith, and Maccabees, omitting such pas-
sages as seemed to him less necessary and important. Two copies
of this version are known, at Oxford and in the British Museum.
This completes the history of the English Bible before the Norman
Conquest. That catastrophe seems to have crushed for a time
the literary development of the English people. The upper class
N 2
196 OUR :bible and the ancient manuschipts.
was overthrown and kept in subjection; the lower orders were
too ignorant to carry on the work for themselves. It is true
that the existence of the manuscript described just above is a
proof that the early English version of the Gospels continued to
be copied, and presumably read, in the twelfth century ; but it
is not until the century after this that we find any resumption
of the task of translating the Scriptures into the language of
the common people. In the reigns of John and Henry III. the
„ ^ . intermixture between Norman and English was
Verse transla- ^
tions in the progressing fast, and the English element was
13th century, i • • . , -^ t • • ^.r
begmnmg to assert its predominance m the
Dombinatiou. English poetry begins again with Layamon about
the year 1205. Ten years later religious verse made its reappear-
ance in the " Ormulum," a metrical version of the daily services
of the Church, including portions of Scripture from the New
Testament; About the middle of the century the narratives of
Genesis and Exodus were rendered into rhyming verse ; and
towards its end we find a nearer approach to regular translation
in a metrical version of the Psalter which has come down to us
in several copies. It is curious that, at this time, the Psalter
seems to have been in especial favour in England, almost to the
exclusion of the other books of the Bible. For about a century,
from 1250 to 1350, no book of the Bible seems to have been
translated into English except the Psalter ; and of this there
were no less than three distinct versions within that period. In
addition to the verse translation just mentioned, of which the
author is unknown, the Psalms were rendered into prose in 1320
by William of Shoreham, Vicar of Chart Sutton, in Kent ; and
almost at the same time Eichard Rolle, a hermit of Hampole,
near Doncaster, prepared another version, accompanied by a com-
mentary, verse by verse.
Some specimens of these translations will show the progress
of the English language, and carry on the history of the English
Bible. The following is the beginning of the 56th Psalm as
it appears in the version of William of Shoreham : — " Have
THE ENGLISH MANUSCRIPT BIBLES. 197
mercy on me, God, for man hath defouled me. Th^ fende trubled
me, fe^Atand* alday o^Aayns me. Myn enemya
wuiiam of defouled me alday, for many were fe^Atand
Shoreham, o^^ins me. Y shal dred the fram the he^At of
the daye ; y for sothe shal hope in the. Hii shal hery my wordes,
what manes flesshe doth to me. Alday the wicked acurseden myn
wordes o^Aains me ; alle her thoutes ben in ivel."
• In Richard Eolle of Hampole, the verses are separated from one
another by a commentary, much exceeding the original text in
length. Many copies of this version exist, but
ftud of Kicli&rd
EoUe of Ham- they differ considerably from one another, so
^^ ®- that it is difficult to say which represents be«t
the author's original work. Here is the same passage as it appears
in one of the manuscripts (Brit. Mus. Arundel MS. 158) : " Have
mercy of me, God, for man trad me, al day the fjghtjnge troublede
me. Myn enemys me trede al day for many fy^Atynge a^Aenes me.
Fro the hy^Anesse of the day schal I drede : I sothly schal hope in
the. In God I schal preyse my wordes, in God I hopede. I schal
noght drede what flesch doth to me. Al day my wordes thei
cursede a^Aenes me, alle the tho^Ates of hem in yvel."
Such was the knowledge of the Bible in England on the
eve of the great revival which took place in the fourteenth
century, The old Anglo-Saxon version of the
ofreUgionin Gospels had dropped out of use, as its language
gradually became antiquated and unintelligible ;
and no new translation had taken its place. The Psalms alone
were extant in versions which made any pretence to be faithful.
The remaining books of the Bible were known to the common
people only in the shape of rhyming paraphrases, or by such oral
teaching as the clergy may have given. But with the increase of
life and interest in the lower classes, and with the revival of
literary activity in the English language, this condition of things
* The letter represented by gh sometimes corresponds to onr y, sometimes
to g or gh.
198 OUR £IBLE AKD THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
^ ^
could not last* The end of the thirteenth century had seen the
first recognition of the right of the common folk to representation
in the national Council, which thenceforward became a Parlia-
ment. The reigns of Edward II. and Edward III. saw the steady
growth of a spirit of healthy life and independence in the people.
They saw also the rise of literature, in Langland and Gower, and
above all in Chaucer, to a position of real influence in the
national life. And with this quickening interest in their sur-
roundings on the part of the common people, there came a
quickening interest in religion, which was met and answered by
the power and the will to provide religious teaching for them
in their own language. Thus was the way prepared for the
religious movement which makes the fourteenth century so im-
portant a period in the history of our Church and Bible. lu
France, under the stimulus of the University of Paris, and perhaps
of the king, St. Louis, the awakening had come a century sooner,
and had manifested itself alike in a revised edition of the current
Vulgate text, with a great multiplication of copies for common
and private use, and in the preparation of the first complete ver-
sion of the Bible in French. In England the result of the
movement was likewise an increased circulation of the Bible,
but it was a Bible in the language of the people*
The movement of which we are speaking is commonly connected
in our minds, and quite rightly, with the name of Wycliff e ; but it
is impossible to define exactly the extent of his own personal par-
ticipation in each of its developments. The movement was at
first discountenanced, and presently persecuted, by the leading
authorities in Church and State ; and hence the writers of works
in connection with it were not anxious to reveal their names*
Most of the publications on the Wycliffite side are anonymous ;
and the natural consequence of this is that nearly all of them
have been, at one time or another, attributed to Wycliffe himself.
So far, however, as our immediate subject, the tmnslation of the
Bible, is concerned, there is no reason to doubt the personal
responsibility of Wycliffe ; nor is there any suflBcient reason for
THE ENGLISH MANUSCRIPT BIBLES. 199
the opinion, which has been sometimes held, that a complete
English Bible existed before his time. It rests mainly on the
statement of Sir Thomas More, in his controversy with Tyndale,
the author of the first printed English New Testament, that he
had seen English Bibles of an earlier date than Wycliffe's. No
trace of such a Bible exists, and it is highly probable that More
was not aware that there were two Wycliffitc translations, and had
mistaken the date of the earlier one. To the history of these
translations, the first complete Bible in the English language, we
may now proceed.
John Wycliffe was bom in Yorkshire about the year 1320. He
entered Balliol College at Oxford, and presently became Fellow,
liff ^^^> ^^^ ^ short time, Master of that Collie;
but resigned the latter post when, in 1361, he
was presented to the living of Fillingham, in Lincolnshire. It was
not until he had passed middle life that he began to take part in
public controversies ; but when he did so, he at once became the
most prominent leader of the party of reform. It was a period of
discontent in England ; discontent at the long and costly war with
France, discontent at the demands of the Pope for money, dis^
content at the wealth of the higher dignitaries and corporations of
the Church, who, in the main, supported the claims of the Pope.
Wycliffe's first work was a treatise justifying the refusal of
Parliament to pay the tribute claimed by the Pope in 1366 ; and
from 1371 he was in the forefront of the religious and social dis-
turbance which now began to rage. Papal interference and
Church property were the main objects of his attack, and his chief
enemies were the bishops. He was supported in most of his
struggles by John of Gaunt, who wished to humiliate the Church;
by the University of Oxford, consistently faithful to him except
when he committed himself to theological opinions which it held
heretical ; and by the great mass of the common people, whose
views he reflected with regard to the Pope and the Papal sup*
porters.
With the political and religious controversy we have here
20a OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CSIPT8.
nothing to do. Whether Wycliffe was right or wrong in hiff
attack on Church property or in his generally socialistic schemes
concerns us not now. Eeformers are often carried to extremes
which dispassionate observers must condemn. But his champion-
ship of the common people led him to undertake a work which
entitles him to honourable mention by men of all parties and all
opinions, — ^the preparation of an English Bible which every man
who knew his letters might read in his own home. And that even
those who could not read might receive the knowledge of the
teachings of this Bible, he instituted his order of " poor priests "
to go. about and preach to the poor in their own tongue, work-
ing in harmony with the clergy if they would allow them, but
against them or independent of them if they were hostile.
The exact history of Wycliffe's translation of the Bible is uncer-
tain. Separate versions of the Apocalypse and of a Harmony of
the Gospels have been attributed to him, with
Wyclifflte BiWe. ^^''^ ^^ ^^^ probability, but with no certainty.
In any case these were but preludes to the great
work. The New Testament was first finished, about the year
1380 ; and in 1382, or soon afterwards, the version of the entire
Bible was completed. He was now rector of Lutterworth, in
Leicestershire, living mainly in his parish, but keeping constantly
in touch with Oxford and London. Other scholars assisted him
in hi9 work, and we have no certain means of knowing how much
of the translation was actually done by himself. The New Testa-
ment is attributed to him, but we cannot say with certainty that it
was entirely his own work. The greater part of the Old Testament
was certainly translated by Nicholas Hereford, one of Wycliffe's
most ardent supporters at Oxford. Plate XXIY. gives a repro^
duction of a page of the very manuscript written under Hereford's
direction, now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Bodl. 959). The
manuscript itself seems to tell something of its history. It breaks
off quite abruptly at Baruch 3. 20, in the middle of a sentence, and
it is evident that Hereford carried on the work no further ; for
mother manuscript at Oxford, copied from it, ends at the same
PLATE XXIV.
THE ENGLISH MANUSCRIPT BIBLES. 201
^^-^»^— ^^ ■ ■ ■ I I ■ ■ — ■ ■■ I 1^ ■ I ■■■■—-■■■■—■ |l ^— t— ^^^^^^—1 ^W^— ^M^—
place, and contains a contemporary note assigning the work to
Hereford. It may be supposed that this sudden break marks the
time of Hereford's summons to London in 1382, to answer for his
opinions, which resulted in his excommunication and retirement
from England. The manuscript is written by five diif erent scribes^
The page exhibited, which contains Ecclesiasticus 47. 6-T-48. 17*
shows the change from the fourth hand to the fifth, with correc-
tions in the margin which may be those of Hereford himself^
After Hereford's departure the translation of the Old Teistament
was continued by Wycliffe himself or his assistants, and so the
entire Bible was complete in its English dress before the death of
Wycliffe in 1384.
A marked difference in style distinguishes Hereford's work from
that of Wycliffe and his other assistants, if such there were.
Wycliffe's style is free and colloquial. There can be little doubt
that he- had in his mind the common people, for whom his version
was especially intended, and that he wrote in a style which they
would understand and appreciate. Hereford, on the other hand,
was a scholar, perhaps a pedant, trained in University ideas of
exactness and accuracy. He clung too closely to the exact words
of the Latin from which his translation was made, and hence his
style is stiff and awkward, and sometimes even obscure from its
too literal faithfulness to the original. Wycliffe's own work also
was capable of improvement, and the strong contrast in style
between him and his colleague called aloud for a revision of the
whole version. Such a revision was taken in
Wycliffite Bible. ^^^^^ shortly after Wycliffe's death, by one of his
followers, and was completed probably about the
year 1388. The pupil who executed it has left a preface, in which
he describes the principles upon which his revision was made, but
he has not told us his name ; from internal evidence, however, and
especially from the verbal resemblance between this preface and
other writings of which the author is known, he is believed to
have been John Purvey, one of Wycliffe's most intimate friends
during the latter part of his life, and a sharer in the condemnation
202 OUB mBLE AND TEE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPTS.
' ' ■ ■ ■ ■
of Nicholas Hereford. The Old Testament, which stood most in
need of revision, was completed first, and the reviser's preface
relates to that alone. The New Testament followed later. This
revised version rapidly supplanted its predecessor, and became
the current form of the Wycliffite Bible during the fifteenth
century.
About a hundred and seventy copies of the Wycliffite Bible are
now known to be in existence ; and of these, five-sixths contain
the revised edition by Purvey, while less than thirty have the
original form of the translation. The following instance will show
the character of this, the first complete English Bible, and the
extent of the alterations made by Purvey. In the first passage the
author of the older version is Hereford ; in the second it is
Wycliffe or one of his unnamed assistants.
EAKLIER VERSION,
Isaiah 85. 1-6.
Gladen shal desert and the with
oute weie, and ful out shal ioyen the
wildemesse., and flouren as a lilie.
Buriownynge it shal burioune, and
ful out ioyen, ioyeful and preising.
The glorie of Liban is youe to it, the
fairnesse of Carmel and of Saron ; thei
shul see the glorie of the Lord, and
the fairnesse of oure God. Coum-
forteth the hondes loosid atwynne,
and the feble knees strengtheth.
Seith,yee of litil corage, taketh conm-
fort, and wileth not dreden ; lo ! oure
God veniaunce of yelding shal bringe,
God he shal come and sauen us.
Thanne shul ben opened the eyen of
blynde men, and eres of deue men
shal ben opened. Thanne shal lepe as
an hert the halte, and opened shal be
the tunge of doumbe men; for kut
ben in desert watris, and stremes in
wildernesse.
LATER VERSION.
Isaiah 85. 1-6.
The forsakun Judee and with out-en
weie schal be glad, and wildimisse
schal make ful out ioje, and schal
floure as a lilie. It buriownynge
schal buriowne, and it glad and prei-
singe schal make ful out ioie. The
glorie of Liban is youun to it, the
fairnesse of Carmele and of Saron ;
thei schulen se the glorie of the Lord,
and the fairnesse of oure God. Coum-
forte ye comelid hondis, and make ye
strong feble knees. Seie ye, men of
litil coumfort, be ye coumfortid, and
nyle ye drede; lo! oure God schal
brynge the veniaunce of yelding, God
hym silf schal come, and schal saue
us. Thanne the iyen of blynde men
schulen be openyd, and the eeris of
deef men schulen be opyn. Thanne a
crokid man schal skippe as an hert,
and the tunge of doumbe men schal
be openyd ; for whi watris ben
brokun out in desert, and stremes in
wUdirnesse.
THE ENGLISH MANU8CBIPT BIBLES.
203
EAKLIER VERSION,
Hebrews 1. 1-3.
Manyfold and many manors sum
tyme God spekinge to fadris in pro-
phetis, at the lajste in thes daies spak
to us in the sone : whom he ordey nede
eyr of alia thingis, by whom he made
and the worldis. The which whanne
he is the schynynge of glorie and
figure of his substaunce, and berynge
alle thingis bi word of his vertu,
makyng purgacioun of synnes, sittith
on the righthalf of mageste in high
thingis; so moche maad betere than
aungelis, by how moche he hath in-
herited a more different, or excellent^
name bifore hem.
LATER VERSION.
Hebrews !• 1-3.
God, that spak sum tyme bi pro-
phetis in many maneres to oure fadris,
at the laste in these daies he hath
spoke to us bi the sone ; whom he
hath ordeyned eir of alle thingis, and
bi whom he made the worldis. Which
whanne also he is the brightnesse of
glorie, and figure of his substaunce,
and berith all thingis bi word of his
vertu, he makyth purgacioun of synnes
and syttith on the righthalf of the
maieste in heuenes; and so much is
maad betere than aungels, bi hou
myche he hath enerited a more dy**
uerse name bifor hem.
Such is the first complete English Bible, the first Bible which
we know to have circulated among the common people of England.
Many of the copies which now remain testify that they were
intended for private use. They are not large and well-written
volumes, such as would be placed in libraries or read to a congre-
gation. Such copies there were, indeed, — ^volumes which were
found in kings' houses and in monastic libraries, as we shall see
presently ; but those of which we are now speaking are small,
closely-written copies, with no ornamentation, such as a man
would have for his own reading and might carry in his pocket.
In this form the Bible reached those who could not read Latin,
It had indeed travelled a long way. It was no careful rendering
of an accurately studied and revised Greek text, such as we have
to-day. The original Greek had been translated into Latin long
centuries before ; the Latin had become corrupted and had been
revised and translated anew by St. Jerome ; St. Jerome's version
had become corrupted in its turn, and had suffered many things
of editors and copyists ; and from copies of this corrupted Latin
the English translation of Wycliffe and Purvey had been made.
Still, through all these changes and chances, the substance of
the Holy Scriptui^ remained the same; and, with whatever
204* OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
- — ■ -^ « : TTT
imperfections, the entire Bible was now accessible to the Eng-
lish in their own language, through the zeal and energy of
John Wycliffe.
So, at least, it has always been held; and it is nothing less
than astounding to find it now suggested that the Wycliffite
Is the Wyclifflte ^^^^^ ^ ^^^ Wycliffe's at all, but is the work;
Bible reaUy of his bitterest opponents, the bishops of the
English Church who represented the party of
Rome. Such is the remarkable assertion recently made by a
well-known Eoman Catholic scholar in England, Father Gasquet.*
Father Gasquet has earned honourable distinction for his careful
and original work on the history of the Eeformation of the
English Church; and any views expressed by him on a matter
of history deserve respect and notice. In the present case it is
diflScult not to feel that he has gone upon insufficient evidence ;
but the subject is interesting enough to deserve fuller discussion.
Father Gasquet's main points are as follows: (1) the evidence
Theory that connecting Wycliffe with an English version of
h ^i*^/^ *'b® Bible is very slight ; (2) the hostility of the
sion issued bishops to an English Bible has been much
by t e B shops, exaggerated, and there is no sign that the
possession or use of such a Bible was commonly made a subject
of inquiry in the examinations of Wycliffe's adherents ; (3) the
character of the extant copies, and the rank and known opinions
of their original owners, are such as to be inconsistent with
the idea that they were the work of a poor and proscribed sect,
as the Wycliffites are represented to have been ; (4) there are
indications of the existence of an authorised translation of the
Bible at this period, and this we must conclude to be the ver-
sion which has come down to us. The Bible of Wycliffe, if it
ever existed, must have been completely destroyed.
Now on the first of these points. Father Gasquet seems to
ignore the strength of the evidence which connects Wycliffe and
* In the Dublin Review, July 1894.
THE ENGLISH MANUaCBIPT BIBLES, 20S
his supporters, not merely with a translation of the Bible, but with
these translations. That they were responsible
^ tM^^S*^^'^ ^^ ^^^ ^ translation is proved by the contemporary
evidence of Archbishop Arundel, Knyghton,
and a decree of the Council held at Oxford in 1408 — all wit-
nesses hostile to the WycliflBtes. If that translation is not the
one commonly known as the WycliflSte Bible, then no trace of
it exists at present, which is in itself improbable. But of the
actually extant translations, the Old Testament in the earlier
version, as we have seen, is shown to be the work of Nicholas
Hereford by the evidence of the note in the Oxford manuscript;
while the later version is obviously based upon the earlier, and
was, moreover, certainly the work of some one who held identical
views with Purvey ; further, in a manuscript of the earlier ver-
sion at Dublin Purvey's own name is written as the owner, and
(what is more important) the prologues to the several books
commonly found in the later version have here been inserted in
Purvey's own writing. Father Gasquet says " whether Hereford
or Purvey possibly may have had any part in the translation
does not so much concern us " ; but he cannot seriously mean
to maintain that an authorised version of the English Bible,
existing (as on his theory it existed) in direct opposition to the
Wycliffite Bible, could itself be the work of Hereford and Purvey,
the two most conspicuous adherents and companions of Wycliffe.
Moreover, the last words of the preface to the revised version
show that the author did not know how his work might be
received by those in power, and looked forward to the possibility
of being called upon to endure persecution for it : " God graunte
to us alle grace to kunne [understand] wel and kepe wel holi
writ, and suffre ioiefuUi sum peyne for it at the laste." This
evidence, taken together with the proved connection of Here-
ford and Purvey with the extant translation, is suflBcient to
establish that it is, as has always been believed, the Wycliffite
Bible.
On his second point, however, Father Gaaquet's position is
206 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
«
much stronger. There is no doubfc thafc the Lollards (as Wycliffe'fl
followers were called) were persecuted, but it does not appear
that the possession, use, or manufacture of an English version of
the Bible was one of the charges specially urged against them.
The subject is not raised in the extant list of articles upon
which the suspected were to be questioned. One is glad that
it should be so, that the leaders of the English Church should
not have beeu hostile to an English Bible ; and one may accept
Pather Gasquet's argument on this point with the more willing-
ness, because it is fatal to his two remaining points. If the
Lollards were not persecuted in connection with the English
Bible, it is manifestly absurd to argue that the existing Bibles
cannot have been written by them because they were persecuted
and their writings destroyed. It is only in rhetorical passages
that the picture has been drawn of the hunted Wycliffite writing
his copy of the English Bible in his obscure cottage, in constant
fear of surprise and arrest. Wycliffe always had strong sympa-
thisers, notably John of Gaunt and the University of Oxford ;
indeed, just as the University of Paris is identified with the
first French Bible, so is the University of Oxford closely as-
sociated with the first Bible in English ; and with such support
Wycliffe can have had no difiiculty in obtaining workmen to
transcribe handsome and elaborate copies of his Bible. Nor
jieed even those who most strongly opposed the socialistic and
heretical opinions of Wycliffe have therefore refused to possess
copies of his translation of the Scriptures, if the existence of
such a translation formed no part of the cause of their hostility
to him. Copies of the English version are known to have
belonged to Henry VI., to Henry VII., to Thomas of Woodstock,
Duke of Gloucester, to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the
founder of the University Library at Oxford, and to many
religious houses ; and if it could be shown that the WycliflBte
translation was an object of persecution by the leaders of the
English Church, the public possession of such copies by. noted
supporters of the Church would unquestionably be difiioult
THE ENGLISH MANUSCRIPT BIBLES. 207
to explain. But since Father Gasquet has shown that this
persecution did not take place, at any rate to the extent
that has been supposed, the rest of his case for distinguishing
the Wycliffite translation from the translations now extant
breaks down.
The fact would seem to "be that the Lollards were persecuted,
but not their Bible. Such hostility as was shown to this was
only temporary, and was confined to a few persons, such as
Archbishop Arundel. Generally the translation was tolerated ;
and this is perfectly comprehensible, since the extant copies,
which we have seen to be connected with Hereford and Purvey,
show no traces of partisanship or of heretical doctrine. It is a
plain translation of the Latin text of the Scriptures then current,
without bias to either side : and, whatever Arundel might do,
other bishops, such as William of Wykeham (who was, moreover
a supporter of John of Gaunt), would not be likely to condemn
it. Nor would the tendency to toleration be less as time went
on, and when John of Gaunt's son, Henry IV., had succeeded to
the throne. If this be admitted, then the references (often very
vague) to an authorised or tolerated version, on which Father
Gasquet bases his fourth point, can be explained without calling
into existence a version other than that of Wycliife and put
forward in its place by the Church.
It is not from any spirit of partisanship that we have argued
against Father Gasquet's novel and interesting theory. One
would gladly believe that the bishops and leaders of the English
Church in the fourteenth century did put forward an English
translation of the Scriptures for the use of their flocks, if there
were suflBcient evidence to support such a view. Unfortunately,
such evidence is not to be had. We know that Wycliffe and
his adherents prepared a translation ; we know that two of his
most prominent supporters, Hereford and Purvey, had at least
some connection with the translations which actually exist ; and
we can see no ground for refusing to take the further step, and
say that the Wycliffite version and the existing translations
'208 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPT8,
are one and the same thing. In any case Wycliffe has the
credit of having been the first to translate the entire Bible into
our native tongue ; and one would be glad that our Church and
nation should have the credit of having accepted so valuable
a work, and of having allowed copies of it to be multiplied and
to be preserved to the present day.
( 2K)9' )
CHAPTER XI.
THE ENGLISH PRINTED BIBLE.
IN the fifteenth century, then, the Bible was circulating, to a
limited extent, in the Wjcliffite translations, tolerated, though
not encouraged, by the powers of Church and State ; but the middle
of the century was barely passed, when two events took place which,
though totally unconnected with one another, by their joint effects
revolutionised the history of the Bible in Western Europe. In
May 1453 the Turks stormed Constantinople ; and in November
1454 the first known product of the printing press in Europe was
issued to the world. The importance of the latter event is obvious,
and has been already explained. Not only did the invention of
printing do away, once and for all, with the progressive conniption
of texts through the inevitable errors of copyists, but it also
rendered it possible to multiply copies to an indefinite extent and
to make learning accessible to every man who coidd read. Know-
ledge need no longer " rest in mounded heaps " in the monastic
libraries, but could freely " melt in many streams to fatten lower
lands." All that was required was that men should be found
willing and able to make use of the machinery which the discovery
of Gutenberg had put into their hands.
It was the other of the two events above recorded which, in
great measure, provided the inspiration that was needful in order
to make the invention of printing immediately fruitful. The
Turkish invasion of Europe, culminating in the capture of Con-
stantinople and the final fall of the Eastern Empire, drove to the
West numberless scholars, able and willing to teach the Greek
language to the people among whom they took refuge. Greek,
almost forgotten in Western Europe during many centuries, had
always been a living language in the East, and now, journeying
westwards, it met a fresh and eager spirit of inquiry, which
S 27&1. 0
210 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
welcomed joyfully the treasures of the incomparable literature
enshrined in that language. Above all, it brought to the West
the knowledge of the New Testament in its original tongue ; and
with the general zeal for knowledge came also a much increased
study of Hebrew, which was of equal value for the Old Testament.
Thus at the very moment when the printing press was ready to
spread instruction over the world a new learning was springing up,
which was only too glad to take advantage of the opportunity thus
presented to it.
The revival of learning affected the Bible in three ways. In the
first place it led to a multiplication of copies of the then current
Bible, the Latin Vulgate. Next, and far more important, it pro-
duced a study of the Scriptures in their original languages ; and
though the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts then available were by
no means perfect, they at least served to correct and explain the
more corrupt Latin. Finally — the point with which we are
especially concerned in the present chapter, — it promoted a desire
to make the Scriptures known to all classes of men directly, and
not through the medium of men's instruction ; and this could only
be done by having the Bible translated in each country into the
common language of the people. Especially was this the case in
the countries which, in the sixteenth century, broke away from the
domination of the Pope. The monasteries were corrupt, the
religious teaching, which was the special justification for their
existence, was often either false or nonexistent. The reformers
held that the best method of overthrowing the power of the
monasteries and of the Eoman Church was to enable the
common people to read the Bible for themselves and learn how
much of the current teaching of the priest and friar had no
basis in the words of Scripture. The leaders of the Roman
Church, on the other hand, doubted the advisability of allowing the
Scriptures to be read by uneducated or half -educated folk, without
the accompaniment of oral instruction. Some of them may have
known that certain current practices could not be justified out
of the Bible ; others may have feared that the reformers would
THE EITGLISH PRINTED BIBLE. 211
introduce heretical teaching into their translations. So it fell out
that the struggle of the Eeformation period was largely concerned
with the question of the translation of the Bible. In Germany the
popular version was made, once and for all, by the great reformer,
Luther ; but in England, where parties were more divided, the
translation of the Bible was the work of many years and many
hands. In this chapter we shall narrate the history of the
successive translations which were made in England, from the
invention of printing to the completion of the Authorised Version
in 1611, and in conclusion shall give some account of the Ee vised
Version of 1881-5.
The true father of the English Bible is William Tyndale, who
was born in Gloucestershire about the year 1484. He was edu-
cated at Oxford, where he was a member of
B'hf^isM^ Magdalen Hall, then a dependency of Magdalen
College. Here he may have begun his studies
of Biblical interpretation and of the Greek language under the
great leaders of the new learning at Oxford, Colet of Magdalen
and Grocyn of New College; but about 1510 the fame of
Erasmus, who was then teaching at Cambridge, drew him to ihe
sister University, where he stayed for several years. It was
while he was at Cambridge, or soon afterwards, that he formed
the resolve, to the accomplishment of which his whole subsequent
life was devoted, to translate the Bible into English ; saying, in
controversy with an opponent, " If God spare my life, ere many
years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more
of the Scripture than thou doest." He had hoped that this
might be accomplished under the patronage of the leaders of the
Church, notably Tunstall, Bishop of London, to whom he first
applied for countenance and support. Tunstall, however, refused
his apphcation, and although Humphrey Monmouth, an alderman
of London, took him into his house for several months, it was
not long before Tyndale understood "not only that there was
no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the New Testa-
ment, but also that there was no place to do it in all England."
0 2
212 OUli BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
. ■-■■■■ ■■!. .It
Accordingly in 1524 he left England and took up his abode
in the free city of Hamburg, Here his translation of the New
, Testament was completed, and in 1525 he transferred himself to
Cologne in order to have it printed. Meanwhile rumours of his
work had got abroad. He was known to belong to the reforming
party ; in translating the Bible he was following the example
of Luther ; he may even have met Luther himself at Wittenburg,
which is not far from Hamburg. His translation was probably
part of a design to convert England to Lutheranism ; and cleaiiy
it must not be allowed to go forward if it were possible to stop
it. The secret of the. printing was, however, .well kept; and it
was not until the printing had made considerable progress that
Cochlaeus, an active enemy of the Reformation, obtained the
clue to it. Hearing boasts from certain printers at Cologne of
the revolution that would shortly be made in England, he
invited them to his house ; and having made them drunk, he
learnt that three thousand copies of an English translation were
being printed, and that some ten sheets of it had already teen
struck off. Having, in this truly creditable manner, obtained the
information he required, he at once set the authorities of the
town in motion to stop the work ; but Tyndale secured the
printed sheets and fled with them to Worms. At "Worms
he not only finished the edition partly printed at Cologne,
which was in quarto form and accompanied by marginal notes,
but also, knowing that a description of this edition had been
«ent by Cochlaeus to England, in order that its importation
might be stopped, had another edition struck off in octavo form
and without notes.
Both editions were completed in 1525, which may consequently
be regarded as the birth-year of the English printed Bible,
though it was probably not until the beginning of 1526
that the first copies reached this country. Money for the work
had been found by a number of English merchants, and by
•their means the copies were secretly conveyed into England,
where they were eagerly bought and read on all sides. The
THE ElTGLISff PRINTED BIBLE 213
leaders of the Church, however, declared against the trans-
lation from the first. Archbishop Warham, a good man and a
scholar, issued a mandate for its destruction. Tunstall preached
against it, declaring that he could produce 3000 erroi-s in it.
Sir Thomas More wrote against it with much bitterness, charging
it with wilful mistranslation of ecclesiastical terms with heretical
intent. The book was solemnly burnt in London at Paul's Cross,
and the bishops subscribed money to buy up all copies obtain-
able from the printers ; a proceeding which Tyndale accepted
with equanimity, since the money thus obtained enabled him to
proceed with the work of printing translations of other parts
of the Bible.* At the same time one reprint of the New Testa-
ment after another was issued by Dutch printers, and, in spite
of all efforts of the Bishops, copies continued to pour into
England as fast as they were destroyed.
The English New Testament was thus irrevocably launched
upon the world ; yet so keen was the search for copies, both
* The account of this transaction given by the old chronicler Hall is very
quaint. After describing how a merchant named Packington, friendly to
Tyndale, introduced himself to Tunstall and offered to buy up copies of the
New Testament for him, he proceeds thus : " The Bishop, thinkibg he had
God by the toe, when indeed he had the devil by the fist, said, 'Gentle
Mr. Packington, do your diligence and get them ; and with all my heart I
will pay for them whatsoever they cost you, for the books are erroneous and
nought, and I intend surely to destroy them all, and to bum them at Paul's
Cross.' Packington came to "William Tyndale and said, 'William, I know
thou art a poor man, and hast a heap of New Testaments and books by thee,
for the which thou hast both endangered thy friends and beggared thyself,
and I have now gotten thee a merchant which, with ready money, shall
despatch thee of all that thou hast, if you think it so profitable for yourself.'
* Who is the merchant ? ' said Tyndale. * The Bishop of London,' said Pack-
ington. * Oh, that is because he will bum them,' said Tyndale. * Yea, marry,*
quoth Packington. ' I am the gladder,' said Tyndale, ' for these two benefits
shall come thereof: I shall get money to bring myself out of debt, and the
whole world will cry out against the burning of God's Word ; and the over-
plus of the money that shall remain to me shall make me more studious to
correct the said New Testament, and so newly to imprint the same once again,
and I trust the second will much better like you than ever did the first.' And
60 forward went the bargain, the Bishop had the books, Packington had the
thanks, and Tyndale had the money."
214 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
then and afterwards, and so complete the destruction of them,
that barely a trace of these earliest editions remains to-day. Of
the quarto edition, begun at Cologne and ended at Worms, only
one solitary fragment exists, containing Matt. 1. 1 — 22. 12. It
is now in the Grenville collection in the British Museum, and
from it is taken the half -page reproduced in Plate XXV., show-
ing the beginning of the Sermon dn the Mount. Of the octavo,
one perfect copy exists in the library of the Baptist College at
Bristol,* another, imperfect, in St. Paul's Cathedral. This is all
that is left of the many thousand copies which poured from the
press between 1526 and 1530.
Tyndale's New Testament differs from all those that preceded
it in being a translation from the original Greek, and not from
the Latin. He made use of such other materials as were avail-
able to assist his judgment, namely, the Vulgate, the Latin
translation which Erasmus published along with his Greek text,
and the German translation of Luther ; but these were only
subordinate aids, and his main authority was unquestionably the
Greek text which had been published by Erasmus in 1516 and
revised in 1522. This was a new departure, and some of the
"mistakes" which Tunstall and others professed to find in
Tyndale's work may have been merely cases in which the Greek
gave a different sense from the Latin to which they were
accustomed. The amount of actual errors in translation would
not appear to be at all such as to justify the extremely hostile
reception which the leaders of the Church gave to the English
Bible. More may or may not have been right in holding that
the old ecclesiastical terms, such as "church," "priest," "charity,"
round which the associations of centuries had gathered, should
not be set aside in favour of " congregation," " senior," " love,"
and the like : there is much to be said on both sides of the
question ; but certainly this was no just reason for proscribing
the whole translation and assailing its author. Nor can such
* This copy was discovered in 1740 by an agent of the Earl of Oxford,
who bestowed on the fortunate discoverer an annuity of £20.
^gs^«%^s?
2?ga<&5
!-■§■ ®
«eiit*llf|i^a^i|f
1.^2 s§?1*i'lfle.^f ill
••SaltiltilillRiild
s •S- H •»« % S *?i#f If J
'a I
THE ENGLISH PRINTED BWLK 215
treatment be explained on the ground of Tyndale's marginal
comments, controversial though they unquestionably were, and,
in part, derived from those of Luther ; for measures were taken
to suppress the book before its actual appearance, and the pro-
scription was not confined to the quarto, which alone contained
the comments, but was extended to the octavo, in which the
sacred text stood by itself. The reception which the heads of
the English Church, Heniy VIII. included, gave to Tyndale's
Testament can only be attributed to a disUke of the very existence
of an English Bible.
Tyndale's labours did not cease with the appearance of his New
Testament. His hope was to complete the translation of the
whole Bible ; and although other works, chiefly of a controversial
character, occupied some portion of his time, he now set himself to
work on the Old Testament. The first instalment occupied him
for four years, and in 1530 the Pentateuch issued from the press,
accompanied by strongly controversial marginal notes. The five
books must have been separately printed, since Genesis and Num-
bers are printed in black letter, and the others in Roman (or
ordinary) type ; but there is no sufficient evidence of separate pub-
lication. The Pentateuch was followed in 1531 by the Book of
Jonah, of which only one copy is now known to exist. But Tyndale
had not said his last word on the New Testament. Like a good
scholar, he was as fully aware as his critics could be that his version
admitted of improvement, and he undertook a full and deliberate
revision of it, striving especially after a more exact correspondence
with the Greek. The publication of his labours was hastened by
the appearance of an unauthorised revision in 1534, the work of
one George Joye. Since the original publication in 1526, the
printers of Antwerp had been issuing successive reprints of it, each
less correct than its predecessor, and at last Joye had consented to
revise a new edition for the press. Joye had taken Tyndale's
version, altered it considerably, especially by comparison with the
liatin Vulgate, had introduced variations of translation in accor-
dance with his own theological opinions, And had published the
216 OUR BISLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
whole without any iadication of a change of authorship. Tyndale
was justly indignant at this a<5t of combined piracy and fraud ;
but his best antidote was found in the publication of his own
revised edition in the autumn of the same year. It is this edition
of 1634 which is the true climax of Tyndale's work on the New
Testament. The text had been diligently corrected ; introductions
were prefixed to each book ; the marginal commentary was re-
written in a less controversial spirit ; and at the end of the
volume were appended certain extracts from the Old Testament
which were read as " Epistles " in the Church services for certain
days of the year.
With the appearance of this edition Tyndale's work was practi-
cally at an end. The battle was substantially won ; for although
he himself was held in no greater favour in England than before,
the feeling against an English Bible had considerably abated, and
the quarrel with Eome had reached an open rupture. Cromwell
and Cranmer were already convinced of the desirability of having
the Bible translated by authority ; and Tyndale was able to present
a magnificent copy of his new edition to Queen Anne Boleyn,*
who had constantly favoured the undertaking of the English Bible.
But the enmity of the Eomanist party against Tyndale himself
was not abated ; and his labour for the diffusion of God's Word
was destined to receive the crown of martyrdom. He was now
residing at Antwerp, a free city, and was safe as an inmate of the
''English House," an established home of English merchants in
that city. But in 1535 a traitor, named Henry Philips, wormed
himself into his confidence and used his opportunity to betray him
into the hands of some officers of the Emperor Charles Y., by
whom he was kidnapped and carried out of the city. The real
promoters of this shameful plot have never been known. It is
certain that Philips was well supplied with money, which must
have come from the Romanist party, to which he belonged.
Henry VIII., who was now at open war with this party, can have
♦ This copy is now in the British Museum,
THE ENGLISH PBINTED BIBLE. 217
* ■■■ 1 ' ■ ■■!■■■■»■ ■ «TT ■ ■ --.■■ ■■MI..— M ■■■ ^,1 I - - ■ III MWM I ■■■ ■■ m^ ■ ■ ■— ■»■ »■»■ ■
had no share in the treachery. The most that can be said against
him is that he took no steps to procure Tyndale's release.
Cromwell used his influence to some extent ; but from the moment
of the arrest, the prisoner's fate was certain. Charles V. had set
himself to crush heresy by stringent laws ; and there was no doubt
that, from Charles's point of view, Tyndale was a heretic. After
a long imprisonment at Vilvorde, in Belgium, he was brought to
trial, and in October 1536 he suflered martyrdom by sti-angling at
the stake and burning, praying with his last words, " Lord, open
the King of England's eyes."
Before his arrest Tyndale had once more revised his New Testa-
ment, which passed through the press during his imprisonment.
Tliis edition, which appeared in 1535, differs little from that of
1534, and the same may be said of other reprints which appeared
in 1535 and 1536. These cannot have been supervised by Tyndale
himself, and the eccentricities in spelling which distinguish one of
them are probably due to Flemish compositors. We shall see in
the following pages how his work lived after him, and how his
translation is the direct ancestor of our Authorised .Version. The
genius of Tyndale shows itself in the fact that he was able to
couch his translations in a language perfectly understanded of the
people and yet full of beauty and of dignity. If the language of
the Authorised Version has deeply affected our English prose, it
is to Tyndale that the praise is originaDy due. He formed the
mould, which subsequent revisers did but modify. A specimen
of his work may fitly close our a<5C0unt of him.* It is his version
of Phil. 2. 5-13 as it appears in the edition of 1534, and readers
will at once recognise how much of the wording is familiar to us
in the rendering of the Authorised Version : —
" Let the same mynde be in you that was in Christ Jesu : which
beynge in the shape of God, and thought it not robbery to be
equall with God. Nevertheless, he made him silfe of no reputa-
cion, and toke on him the shape of a servaunte, and became lyke
*** Another specimen will be found in the Appendix, where it can be compared
with the versions of his successors.
218 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANU8CBIPT8.
unto men, and was found in his aparell as a man. He humbled
him silfe and became obedient unto deeth, even the deethe of the
crosse. Wherfore God hath exalted him, and geven him a name
above all names : that in the name of Jesu shuld every knee bowe,
bothe of thinges in heven and thinges in erth and thinges under
erth, and that all tonges shuld confesse that Jesus Christ is the
lorde unto the prayse of God the father. Wherefore, my dearly
beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not when I was present only,
but now moche more in myne absence, even so worke out youre
owne salvacion with feare and tremblynge. For it is God which
worketh in you, both the will and also the dede, even of good
will."
Tyndale was burnt; but he, with even greater right than
Latimer, might say that he had lighted such a candle, by God's
grace, in England, as should never be put out.
^ibi^'^iMS* ^^® ^^^ "^^^ Testament had been rigorously
excluded from England, so far as those in autho-
rity could exclude it ; but the cause for which he gave his
life was won. Even before his death he might have heard
that a Bible, partly founded on his own, had been issued in
England under the protection of the highest authorities. In
1534 Convocation had petitioned the king to authorise a trans-
lation of the Bible into English, and it was probably at this
time that Cranmer proposed a scheme for a joint translation
by nine or ten of the most learned bishops and other scholars.
Cranmer's scheme came to nothing ; but Cromwell, now Secretary
of State, incited Miles Coverdale to publish a work of translation
on which he had been already engaged. Coverdale had known
Tyndale abroad, and is said to have assisted him in his translation
of the Pentateuch ; but he was no Greek or Hebrew scholar, and
his version, which was printed abroad in 1536 and appeared in
England in that year or the next, professed only to be translated
from the Dutch [i.e. German] and Latin. Coverdale, a moderate,
tolerant, earnest man, claimed no originality, and expressly looked
forward to the Bible being more faithfully presented both " by the
THE ENGLISH :PJRmTED BIBLE, 219
ministration of other that begun it afore " (TyndaJe) and by the
future scholars who should follow him;, but his Bible has two
important claims on our interest. It was not expressly authorised,
but it was undertaken at the wish of Cromwell and dedicated to
Henry VIII ; so that it is the first English Bible which circulated
in England without let or hindrance from the higher powers. It
is also the first complete English printed Bible, since Tyndale had
not been able to finish the whole of the Old Testament. In the
Old Testament Coverdale depended mainly on the Swiss-German
version published by Zwingli and Leo Juda in 1524-1529, though
in the Pentateuch he also made considerable use of Tyndale's
translation. The Xew Testament is a careful revision of Tyndale
by comparison with the German. His task was consequently of a
secondary character, consisting of a skilful selection from the
materials of others ; but such editorial work is far from being
unimportant, and many of Coverdale's phrases have passed into
the Authorised Version. In one respect he departed markedly
from his predecessor, namely, in bringing back to the English
Bible the ecclesiastical terms which Tyndale had banished.
In addition to the Bible issued in 1535-6, Coverdale, in 1538,
published a revised Xew Testament with the Latin in parallel
columns.* Meanwhile the demand for the Bible continued un-
abated, and a further step had been made in the direction of
securing ofl&cial authorisation. Two revised editions were pub-
lished in 1537, and these bore the announcement that they were
" set forth with the king's most gracious license." The bishops in
Convocation might still discuss the expediency of allowing the
Scriptures to circulate in English, but the question had been
decided without them. The Bible circulated, and there could
be no returning to the old ways.
♦ This was printed in England, but so inaccurately that Coverdale had a
second edition printed at once in Paris. This no doubt led to a coolness
with his English printer, Nycolson, of Southwark, who issued another edition,
also very inaccurate, substituting the name of "Johan Holly bushe " for that
of Coverdale on the title page.
220 OUR BIBLE AND THE AKCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
T-|-,l I II -|- TT I ~
Fresh translations, or, to speak more accurately, fresh revisions,
of the Bible now followed one another in quick succession. The
first to follow Coverdale's was that which is
^«?f?**??^'* known as Matthew's Bible, but which is in fact
Bible, 1537.
the completion of Tyndale's work. Tyndale had
only, published the Pentateuch, Jonah, and the New Testament,
but he had never abandoned his work on the Old Testament, and
he had left behind him in manuscript a version of the books from
Joshua to 2 Chronicles. The person into whose hands this version
fell, and who was responsible for its publication, was John Eogers ;
and whether *' Thomas Matthew,'* whose name stands at the foot
of the dedication, was an assistant of Rogers, or was Rogers him-
self under another name, has never been clearly ascertained.* -The
Bible which Rogers published in 1537, at the expense of two
London merchants, consisted of Tyndale's version of Genesis to
2 Chronicles, Coverdale's for the rest of the Old Testament
(including the Apocrypha), and Tyndale's New Testament accord-
ing to his final edition in 1535 ; the whole being very slightly
revised, and accompanied by introductions, summaries of chapters,
woodcuts, and copious marginal comments of a somewhat con-
tentious character. It was printed abroad, dedicated to Henry
VIII., and was cordially welcomed and promoted by Cranmer.
Cromwell himself, at Cranmer's request, presented it to Henry
and procured his permission for it to be sold publicly ; and so
it came about that Tyndale's translation, which Henry and all
the heads of the Church had in 1525 proscribed, was in 1537
sold in England by leave of Henry and through the active support
of the Secretary of State and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The English Bible had now been licensed, but it had not yet
been commanded to be read in Churches. That honour was
♦ It has also been suggested that Matthew stands for Tyndale, to whom the
greater part of the translation was really due. The appearance of Tyndale's
name on the title page would have made it impossible for Henry VIII. to
admit it into England without convicting himself of error in proscribing
Tyndale's New Testament.
I
THE ENGLISH I>IilKTED JBIBL^. ^H
reserved for a new revision which Cromwell (perhaps anxious
lest the substaDtial identity of Matthew's Bible
4. The Great y;f\j^\^ Tyndale's, and the controversial character
of the notes, should come to the king's
knowledge) employed Coverdale to make on the basis of
Matthew's Bible. The printing was begun in Paris in 1638,
but before it was completed came an order from the French
king, forbidding the work to proceed and confiscating the
printed sheets. Coverdale, however, rescued a great number of
the sheets, conveyed printers, presses, and type to London, and
there completed the work, of which Cromwell thereupon ordered
that a copy should be put up in some convenient place in every
church. The Bible thus issued in the spring of 1539 is a splen-
didly printed volume of large size, from which characteristic its
popular name was derived. In contents, it is Matthew's Bible
revised throughout, the Old Testament especially being consider-
ably altered in accordance with Munster's Latin version, which
was greatly superior to the Zurich Bible on which Coverdale had
relied in preparing his own translation. The New Testament was
also revised, with special reference to the Latin version of Eras-
mus. Coverdale's characteristic style of working was thus ex-
hibited again in the formation of the Great Bible. He did not
attempt to contribute independent work of his own, but took the
best materials which were available at the time and combined
them according to his own editorial judgment. He was an editor,
and a very judicious one, not a translator.
In accordance with Cromwell's order, copies of the Great Bible
were set up in every Church ; and we have a curious picture of the
eagerness with which people flocked to make acquaintance with
the English Scriptures in the complaint of Bishop Bonner that
"diverse wilful and unlearned persons inconsiderately and in-
discreetly read the same, especially and chiefly at the time of
divine service, yea in the time and declaration of the word of God."
One can picture to oneself the great length of Old St. Paul's
(of which the bishop is speaking) with the preacher haranguing
2?2 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
from the pulpit at one end, while elsewhere eager volunteers
are reading from the six volumes of the English Bible which
Bonner had put up in different parts of the cathedral, surrounded
by crowds of listeners who, regardless of the order of divine
service, are far more anxious to hear the Word of God itself than
expositions of it by the preacher in the pulpit. Over all the land
copies of the Bible spread and multiplied, so that a contemporary
witness testifies that it had entirely superseded the old romances
as the favourite reading of the people. Edition after edition was
required from the press. The first had appeared in 1639 ; a
second (in which the books of the Prophets had again been
considerably revised by Coverdale) followed in April 1540, with a
preface by Cranmer, and a third in July. In that month Crom-
well was overthrown and executed ; but the progress of the Bible
was not checked. Another edition appeared in November, and
on the title-page was the authorisation of Bishop Tnnstall of
London, who had thus lived to sanction a revised form of the
very work which, as originally issued by Tyndale, he had formerly
proscribed and burnt. Three more editions appeared in 1541, all
substantially reproducing the revision of April 1540, though with
some variations ; and by this time the immediate demand for
copies had been satisfied, and the work alike of printing and of
revising the Bible came for the moment to a pause.*
It is from the time of the Great Bible that we may fairly date
the origin of the Love and knowledge of the Bible which has
characterised, and which still characterises, the English nation.
The successive issues of Tyndale's translation had been largely
wasted in providing fuel for the opponents of the Eeformation ;
but every copy of the seven editions of the Great Bible found, not
merely a single reader, but a congregation of readers. The Bible
* Several of the editions of the Great Bible were printed by Whitchurch,
and it is under the name of Whitchurch's Bible that the rules laid down for
the guidance of the revisers of 1611 refer to it. The rule (which instructs the
revisers to refer to ** Tindale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's " and the
" Geneva" translations) is quoted in the preface to the Kevised New Testament
of 1881.
THE ENGLISH FEINTED BIBLE, 223
took hold of the people, superseding, as we have seen, the most
popular romances ; and through the rest of the sixteenth and the
seventeenth centuries the extent to which it had sunk into their
hearts is seen in their speech, their writings, and even in the daily
strife of politics. And one portion of the Great Bible has had a
deeper and more enduring influence still. When the first Prayer
Book of Edward VI. was drawn up, directions were given in it for
the use of the Psalms from the Great Bible ; and from that day
to this the Psalter of the Great Bible has held its place in our
Book of Common Prayer. Just as, eleven hundred years before,
Jerome's rendering of the Psalter from the Hebrew failed to
supersede his slightly revised edition of the Old Latin Psalms,
to which the ears of men were accustomed, so the more correct
translation of the Authorised Version has never driven out the
more familiar Prayer-Book version which we have received from
the Great Bible. It may be, it certainly is, less accurate ; but it
is smoother in diction, more evenly balanced for purposes of
chanting ; above all, it has become so minutely familiar to us
in every verse and phrase that the loss of old associations, which
its abandonment would produce, would more than counterbalance
the advantage of any gain in accuracy.
One other translation should be noticed in this place for com-
pleteness sake, although it had no effect on the subsequent history
of the English Bible. This was the Bible of E.
i8iWe*l539.^ Taverner, an Oxford scholar, who undertook an
independent revision of Matthew's Bible at the
same time as Coverdale was preparing the first edition of the
Great Bible under Cromwell's auspices. Taverner was a good
Greek scholar, but not a Hebraist ; consequently the best part of
his work is the revision of the New Testament, in which he intro-
duces not a few changes for the better. The Old Testament is
more slightly revised, chiefly with reference to the Vulgate.
Taverner's Bible appeared in 1539, and was once reprinted ; but
it was entirely superseded for general use by the authorised Great
Bible, and exercised no influence upon later translations.
224 OVR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT '^ANUSCBIPTS.
The closing years of Henry's reign were marked by a reaction
against the principles of the Reformation. Although he had
thrown off the supremacy of the Pope, he was by
tSv?^^SS^?TJ'a no means favourably disposed towards the teach-
Bible, 1557-1560. . •' ^
ings and practices of the Protestant leaders, either
at home or abroad ; and after the fall of Cromwell his distrust of
them took a more marked form. In 1543 all translations of the
Bible bearing the name of Tyndale were ordered to be destroyed ;
all notes or comments in other Bibles were to be obliterated ; and
the common people were forbidden to read any part of the Bible
either in public or in private. In 1546 Coverdale's New Testament
was joined in the same condemnation with Tyndale's, and a great
destruction of these earlier Testaments then took place. Thus not
only was the work of making fresh translations suspended for
several years, but the continued existence of those which had been
previously made seemed to be in danger.
The accession of Edward VI. in 1547 removed this danger,'
and during his reign the Bible was frequently reprinted ; but
no new translation or revision made its appearance. It is true
that Sir John Cheke, whose memory is preserved by Milton, as
having "taught Cambridge and King Edward Greek," prepared
a translation of St. Matthew and part of St. Mark, in which he
avoided, as far as possible, the use of all words not English
in origin, substituting (for example) " gainrising " for " resurrec-
tion " and " biword " for " parable " ; but this version was not
printed, and remains as a mere linguistic curiosity. Under Mary
it was not likely that the work of translation would make any
progress. Two of the men most intimately associated with the
previous versions, Cranmer and Eogers, were burnt at the stake,
and Coverdale (who under Edward VI. had become Bishop of
Exeter) escaped with diflficulty. The public use of the English
Bible was forbidden, and copies were removed from the churches ;
but beyond this no special destruction of the Bible was attempted.
Meanwhile the fugitives from the persecution of England were
gathering beyond sea, and the more advanced and earnest among
THE ENGLISH PBINTED BIBLE. 225
them were soon attracted by the influence of Calvin to a congenial
home at Geneva. Here the interrupted task of perfecting the
English Bible was resumed. The place was very favourable for
the purpose. Geneva was the home, not only of Calvin, but of
Beza, the most prominent Biblical scholar then living. Thought
was free, and no considerations of state policy or expediency need
affect the translators. Since the last revision of the English
translation much had been done, both by Beza and by others, to
improve and elucidate the Bible text. A company of Frenchmen
was already at work in Geneva on the production of a revised
translation of the French Bible, which eventually became the
standard version for the Protestants of that country. Amid such
surroundings a body of English scholars took in hand the task of
revising the Great Bible. The first-fruits of this activity was the
New Testament of W. Whittingham, brother-in-law of Calvin's
wife and a Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford, which was printed
in 1657 ; but this was soon supereeded by a more comprehensive
and complete revision of the whole Bible by Whittingham
himself and a group of other scholars. Taking for their basis
the Great Bible in the Old Testament, and Tyndale's last
revision in the New, they revised the whole with much care
and scholarship. In the Old Testament the changes introduced
are chiefly in the Prophetical Books and the Hagiographa, and
consist for the most part of closer approximations to the original
Hebrew. In the New Testament they took Beza's Latin transla^
tion and commentary as their guide, and by far the greater
number of the changes in this part of the Bible are traceable to
his influence. The whole Bible was accompanied by explanatory
comments in the margin, of a somewhat Calvinistic character, but
without any excessive violence or partisanship. The division of
chapters into verses, which had been introduced by Whittingham
from Stephanus's edition of 1561, was here for the first time
adopted for the whole English Bible. In all previous translations
the division had been into paragraphs, as in our present Revised
Version.
S 2764. P
226 OUJR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
Next to Tyndale, the authors of the Geneva Bible have exercised
the most marked influence of all the early translators on the
Authorised Version, Their own scholarship, both in Hebrew and
in Greek, seems to have been sound and sober ; and Beza, their
principal guide in the New Testament, was unsurpassed in his own
day as an interpreter of the sacred text. Printed in legible Roman
type and in a convenient quarto form, and accompanied by an
intelligible and sensible commentary, the Geneva Bible (either as
originally published in 1560, or with the New Testament further
revised by Tomson, in fuller harmony with Beza's views, in 1676)
became the Bible of the household, as the Great Bible was the
Bible of the church. It was never authorised for use in churches,
but it was cordially received by the heads of the English Church,
and until the final victory of King James's Version it was by far
the most popular Bible in England for private reading ; and many
of its improvements, in phrase or in interpretation, were adopted
in the Authorised Version.
With the accession of Elizabeth a new day dawned for the Bible
in England. The public reading of it was naturally restored, and
the clergy were required once more to have a
^"^•v? ^il«S^*' ^opy ^^ ^^^ Great Bible placed in their churches,
which all might read with due order and rever-
ence. But the publication of the Geneva Bible made it impossible
for the Great Bible to maintain its position as the authorised form
of the Engh'sh Scriptures. The superior correctness of the Geneva
version threw discredit on the official Bible ; and yet, being itself the
Bible of one particular party in the Church, and reflecting in its
commentary the views of that party, it could not properly be
adopted as the universal Bible for public service. The necessity
of a revision of the Great Bible was therefore obvious, and it
happened that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker,
was himself a textual scholar, a collector of manuscripts, an editor
of learned works, and consequently fitted to take up the task
which lay ready to his hand. Accordingly, about the year 1563,
he set on foot a scheme for the revision of the Bible by a
TH1& mr&LISE PBiNTED BIBLE. 227
-: . ■ . •».
number of scholars working separately. Portions of the Bible
were assigned to each of the selected divines for revision, the
Archbishop reserving for himself the task of editing the whole
and passing it through the press. A considerable number of the
Selected revisers were bishops,* and hence the result of their
labours obtained the name of the Bishops' Bible.
The Bishops' Bible was published in 1568, and it at once
superseded the Great Bible for official use in churches. No
edition of the earlier te^^t was printed after 1569, and the
mandate of Convocation for the provision of the new version in
all churches and bishops' palaces must have eventually secured its
general use in public services. Nevertheless, on the whole, the
revision cannot be considered a success, and the Geneva Bible
continued to be preferred as the Bible of the household and the
individual. In the forty-three years which elapsed before the
appearance of the Authorised Version, nearly 120 editions of
the Geneva Bible issued from the press, as against twenty of the
Bishops' Bible, and while the former are mostly of small compass,
the latter are mainly the large volumes which would be used in
churches. The method of revision did not conduce to uniformity
of results. There was, apparently, no habitual consultation be-
tween the several revisers. Each carried out his own assigned
portion of the task, subject only to the general supervision of the
Archbishop. The natural result is a considerable amount of
unevenness. The historical books of the Old Testament were
comparatively little altered ; in the remaining books changes were
much more frequent, but they are not always happy or even
correct. The New Testament portion was better done, Greek
being apparently better known by the revisers than Hebrew.
Like almost all its predecessors, the Bishops' Bible was provided
♦ AUey, Bishop of Exeter ; Pavies, Bishop of St. David's ; Sandys, Bishop
of Worcester ; Home, Bishop of Winchester ; Bentham, Bishop of Lichfield
and Coventry ; Grindal, Bishop of London ; Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich ;
Coxe, Bishop of Ely ; and Guest, Bishop of Rochester. The other revisers
were Pearson, Canon of Canterbury'; Peme, Canon of Ely; Goodman, Dean of
Westminster ; and Giles Lawrence.
P 2
228 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
with a marginal commentary, on a rather smaller scale than that
in the Geneva Bible. A second edition was published in 1572, ux
which the New Testament was once more revised, while the Old
Testament was left untouched; but the total demand for the
Bishops' Bible, being probably confined to the copies required for
public purposes, can never have been very great.
Meanwhile the zeal of the reformed churches for the possession
of the Bible in their own languages drove the Eomanists into
8 Th »h 1 competition with them in the production of trans-
and Douai Bible, lations. For each of the principal provinces of
the Latin Church a translation was provided con-
formable to the views of that Church on the text and interpretation
of Scripture. It was not that the heads of the Eoman Church
believed such translations to be in themselves desirable ; but since
there was evidently an irrepressible popular demand for them, it
was clearly advisable, from the Eoman point of view, that the
translated Bible should be accompanied by a commentary in
accordance with Eoman teaching, rather than by that of the
Genevan Calvinists or the English bishops. The preparation of
an English version naturally fell to the scholars of the English
geminary which had lately been established in France. The ori-
ginal home of this seminary was at Douai, but in 1578 it was
transferred for a time to Eheims ; and it was during the sojourn
at Eheims that the first part of the English Bible was produced.
This was the New Testament, which was published in 1582. The
Old Testament did not appear until 1609, when the seminary had
returned to Douai ; and consequently the completed Bible goes by
the name of the Eheims and Douai version.
The most important point to observe about this Eoman Catholic
Bible is that the translation is made, not from the original
Hebrew and Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate. This was done
deliberately, on the ground that the Vulgate was the Bible of
Jerome and Augustine, that it had ever since been used in the
Church, and that its text was preferable to the Greek wherever the
two differed, because the Greek text had been corrupted by
THE ENGLISH PJRINTEB BIBLE. 229
heretics. Furthennore, the translators (of whom the chief was
Gregory Martin, fonnerly Fellow of St, John's College, Oxford)
held it their duty to adhere as closely as possible to the Latin
words, even when the Latin was unintelligible. Bishop Westcott
quotes an extraordinary instance in Ps. 57. 10 : " Before your
thorns did understand the old briar : as living so in wrath he
swalloweth them." The general result is that the translation is
almost always stiff and awkward, and not unfrequently meaning-
less. As a contribution to the interpretation of Scripture it is
practically valueless ; but, on the other hand, its systematic use of
words and technical phrases taken directly from the Latin has had
a considerable influence on our Authorised Version. Many of the
words derived from the Latin which occur in our Bible were
incorporated into it from the Eheims New Testament.
The Romanist Bible had no general success, and its circulation
was not large. The New Testament was reprinted thrice between'
1582 and 1750 ; the Old Testament only once* Curiously enough,
the greater part of its circulation was in the pages of a Protestant
controversialist, Fulke, who printed the Rheims and the Bishops'
New Testaments side by side, and also appended to the Rheims
commentary a refutation by himself. Fulke's work had a con-
siderable popularity, and it is possibly to the wider knowledge of
the Rheims version thus produced that we owe the use made of it>
by the scholars who prepared the Authorised Version : to which
version, after our long and varied wanderings, we are now at
last come.
The attempt of Archbishop Parker and the Elizabethan bishops
to provide a universally satisfactory Bible had failed. The
Bishops' Bible had replaced the Great Bible for
9. The Authorised ^jg^ \^ churches, and that was all. It had not
Version. '
superseded the Geneva Bible in private use ; and
faults and inequalities in.it were visible to all scholars. For the
remaining years of Elizabeth's reign it held its own ; but in the
settlement of religion which followed the accession of James I.,
the provision of a new Bible held a prominent place. At the
280 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
m .' ' ■ ■ ' — — - — ■ r
Hampton Court Conference in 1604, to which bishops and. Puritan
clergy were alike invited by James in order to confer on the
subject of religious toleration, Dr. Eeynolds, President of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, raised the subject of the imperfection of
the current Bibles. Bancroft, Bishop of London, supported him ;
and although the Conference itself arrived at no conclusion on
this or any other subject, the King had become interested in the
matter, and a scheme was formulated shortly afterwards for
carrying the revision into eflFect. It appears to have been James
himself who suggested the leading features of the scheme ; namely,
that the revision should be executed mainly by the Universities ;
that it should be approved by the bishops and most learned of the
Church, by the Privy Council, and by the king himself, so that all
the Church should be concerned in it ; and that it should have no
miarginal commentary, which might render it the Bible of a party
only. To James were also submitted the names of the revisers ;
and it is no more than justice to a king whose political miscon-
ceptions and mismanagemeiits have left him with a very indifferent
character among English students of history, to allow that the
good sense on which he prided himself seems to have been
conspicuously manifested in respect of the preparation of the
Authorised Version, which, by reason of its after effects, may
fairly be considered the most important event of his reign.
It was in 1604 that the scheme of the revision was drawn up,
and some of the revisers may have begun work upon it privately
at this time ; but it was not until 1607 that the task was formally
taken in hand. The body of revisers was a strong one. It in-
cluded the professors of Hebrew and Greek at both Universities,
with practically all the leading scholars and divines of the day.
There is a slight uncertainty about some of the names, and some
changes in the list may have been caused by death or retirement,
but the total number of revisers was from forty-eight to fifty.
These were divided into six groups, of which two sat at West-
minster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. In the first
instance each group worked separately, having a special part of
THE ENGLISH PRINTED BIBLE, 231
the Bible assigned to it* The two Westminster groups revised
Genesis — 2 Kings, and Romans — *Jude; the Oxford groups
Isaiah — ^Malachi, and the Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypse ; while
those at Cambridge uhdei*took 1 Chronicles — ^Ecclesiastes and
the Apocrypha. Elaborate instructions were drawn up for their
guidance, probably by Bancroft. The basis of the revision was to
be the Bishops' Bible ; the old ecclesiastical terms (about which
Tyndale and More had so vehemently disagreed) were to be
retained ; no marginal notes were to be affixed, except necessary
explanation of Hebrew and Greek words ; when any company had
finished the revision of a book, it was to be sent to all the rest for
their criticism and suggestions, ultimate differences of opinion to
be settled at a general meeting of the chief members of each
company ; learned men outside the board of revisers were to be
invited to give their opinions, especially in oases of particular
difficulty.
With these regulations to secure careful and repeated revision,
the work was earnestly taken in hand. It occupied two years
and nine months of strenuous toil, the last nine months being
taken up by a final revision by a committee consisting of two
members from each centre j and in the year 1611 the result
of the revisers' labours issued from the press. It was at once
attacked by Dr* Hugh Broughton, a Biblical scholar of great
eminence and erudition, who had been omitted from the list
of revisers on account of his violent and impracticable dis-
position. His disappointment vented itself in a very hostDe
criticism of the new version ; but this had very little effect, and
the general reception of the revised Bible seems to have been
eminently favourable. Though there is no record whatever of
any decree ordaining its use, by either King, Parliament, or
Convocation, the words "appointed to be read in churches"
appear on its title-page; and there can be no doubt that it
at once superseded the Bishops' Bible (which was not reprinted
after 1606) as the official version of the Scriptures for public
service* Against the Geneva Bible it had a sharper struggle, and
232 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
for nearly half a century the two versions existed side hy side in
private use. From the first, however, the version of 1611 seems
to have been received into popular favour, and the reprints of it
far outnumber those of its rival. It cannot have been authority
in high places of Church or State that caused the final victory of
the new version ; for the Geneva version had outlived the com-
petition of the Bishops' Bible, and the period in which it finally
fell before King James's version was that in which Church and
State were overthrown. It was its superior merits, and its total
freedom from party or sectarian spirit, that secured the triumph
of the Authorised Version, which from the middle of the seven-
teenth century took its place as the undisputed Bible of the
English nation*
The causes of its superiority are not hard to understand. In
the first place, Greek and Hebrew scholarship had greatly in-
creased in England during the forty years which
MiVSluenM. *^ passed since the last revision. It is true that
the Greek text of the New Testament had not been
substantially improved in the interval, and was still very imperfect ;
but the chief concern of the revisers was not with the readings, but
with the interpretation of the Scriptures, and in this department of
scholarship great progress had been made. Secondly, the revision
was the work of no single man and of no single school. It was the
deliberate work of a large body of trained scholars and divines of
all classes and opinions, who had before them, for their guidance,
the labours of nearly a century of revision. The translation of the
Bible had passed out of the sphere of controversy. It was a national
undertaking, in which no one had any interest at heart save that
of producing the best possible version of the Scriptures. Thiidly,
the past forty years had been years of extraordinary growth in
English literature. Prose writers and poets — Spenser, Sidney,
Hooker, Marlowe, Shakespeare, to name only the greatest — had
combined to spread abroad a sense of literary style and to raise the
standard of literary taste. Under the influence, conscious or
unconscious, of masters such as these, the revisers wrought out the
THE ENGLISH PBINTED BIBLE. 238:
fine material left to them by Tyndale and his successors into the
splendid monument of Elizabethan prose which the Authorised
Version is universally admitted to be.
Into the details of the revision it is hardly necessary to go far.
The earlier versions of which the revisers made most use were
those of Eheims and Geneva. Tyndale no doubt fixed the general
tone of the version more than any other translator, through the
transmission of his influence down to the Bishops' Bible, which
formed the basis of the revision ; but rtany improvements in
interpretation were taken from the Geneva Bible, and not a few
phrases and jgingle words from that of Bheims. Indeed, no source
of information seenjs to have been left untried ; and the result was
a version at once more faithful to th^ original than any translation
that had preceded it, and finer ^ a work of literary art than any
translation either before or since. In the Old Testament the
Hebrew tone and manner have been admirably reproduced, and
have passed with the Authorised Version into much of our
literature. Even where the translation is wrong or the Hebrew
text corrupt, as in many passages of the Prophets or the last
chapter of Bcclesiastes, the splendid stateliness of the English
version makes us blind to the deficiency in the sense. And in
the New Testament, in particular, it is the simple truth that the
English version is a far greater literary work than the original
Greek. The Greek of the New Testament is a language which
had passed its prime, and had lost its natural grace and infinite
adaptability. The English of the Authorised Version is the finest
specimen of our prose literature at a time when English prose wore
its statehest and most majestic form.
The influence of the Authorised Version, alike on our religion
and our literature, can never be exaggerated. Not only in the
great works of our theologians, the resonant prose of the seven-
teenthrcentury Fathers of the English Church, but in the writings
of nearly every author, whether of prose or verse, the stamp of its
language is to be seen. Milton is full of it ; naturally, perhaps,
from the nature of his subjects, but still his practice shows his
234 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
sense of the artistic value of its style. So deeply has its language
entered into our common tongue, that one probably could not take
up a newspaper or read a single book in which some phrase was
not borrowed, consciously or unconsciously, from King James's
version. No master of style has been blind to its charms ; and
those who haVe recommended its study most strongly have often
been those who, like Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, were not pre-
pared to accept its teaching to the full*
But great as has been the literary value of the Authorised
Version, its religious significance has been greater still. For
nearly three centuries it has been the Bible, not merely of public
use, not merely of one sect or party, not even of a single country,
but of the whole nation and of every English-speaking country on
the face of the globe. It has been the literature of millions who
have read little else, it has been the guide of conduct to men and
Women of every class in life and of evety rank in learning and
education. No small part of the attachment of the English
people to their national church is due to the common love borne
by every party and well-nigh every individual for the English
Bible. It was a national work in its creation, and it has been a
national treasure since its completion. It was the work, not of
one man, nor of one age, but of many labourers, of diverse and
even opposing views, over a period of ninety years. It was
watered with the blood of martyrs, and its slow growth gave time
for the casting off of imperfections and for the full accomplish-
ment of its destiny as the Bible of the English nation.
With the publication of the Authorised Version the history of
the English Bible closes for many a long year. Partly, no
doubt, this was due to the troubled times which
The Authorised i . i • j i
Version accepted came upon England in that generation and the
as final. ^^^^^ When the constitutions of Church and
State alike were being cast into the melting'pot, when men
were beating their ploughshares into swords, and their pruning-
hooks into spears, there was little time for nice discussions as
to the exact text of the Scriptures, and little peace for the labours
THE BEVISED VERSION. . 835
of scholarship. But the main reason for this pause in the work
was that, for the moment, finality had been reached. The version
of 1611 was an adequate translation of the Greek and Hebrew
texts as they were then known to scholars. The scholarship of
the day was satisfied with it as it had been satisfied with no
version before ^t; and the common people found iti language
appeal to them with a greater charm :and dignity than that of
the Genevan version, to which they had been accustomed. As
time went on the Authorised Version acquired the prescriptive
right of age ; its rhythms became familiar to the ears of all
classes ; its language entered into our literature ; and Englishmen
became prouder of their Bible than of any of the creative works
of their own literature.
What, then, were the causes which led to the revision of this
beloved version within the present generation, after it had held
Need of a ^^^ ground for nearly three hundred years ?
revision in our They may be summed up in a single sentence j
The increase of our knowledge concerning the
original Hebrew and Greek texts, especially the latter. The
reader who will glance back at our history of the Greek texts in
Chapters VI. — VIII. will see how much of oUr best knowledge
about the text of the New Testament has been acquired since the
date of the Authorised Version. Of all the manuscripts de-
scribed in Chapter VII. scarcely one was known to the scholars of
1611 ; of all the versions described in Chapter VIII. not one was
known except the Vulgate, and that mainly in late and corrupt
manuscripts. The editions of the Greek text chiefly used by the
translators of 1611 were those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza ;
and these had been formed from a comparison of only a few
manuscripts, and those mostly of the latest period.* The trans-
lators used the best materials that they had to their hands, and
with good results, since their texts were substantially true, though
not in detail; but since their time the materials have increased.
* Stephanus consulted two good uncials, D and L, but only to a slight
extent.
236 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPTS.
• 1. H ■ ■ !■■■■ ■'
enormously. New manuscripts have come to light, and all the
earliest copies have been minutely examined and discussed*
Many scholars have devoted years of their lives to the collection
of evidence bearing on the text of the New Testament ; and the
general result of these generations of study is to show that the text
used by the translators of 1611 is far from perfect*
For two centuries scholars laboured on without pressing for a
revision of the English Bible, though small alterations were silently
introduced into it until late in the eighteenth
^^' ^rs^wa^*^ century ; but in the middle of the present cen-
tury the discrepancies between the received and
the amended Greek texts became so many and so generally known
that the desirability of a revision became apparent. The dis-
covery of the Codex Sinaiticus, and the critical texts published by
Tisehendorf and Tregelles, did much to bring this need home to
all who cared for the accuracy of the English Bible. Piartial trans-
lations were published by individual scholars, which served a good
purpose in their own time, though they need not be described here,
since none of them exercised any direct influence on the Eevised
Version ; but the final result was that in 1870 decisive steps were
taken to secure an authoritative revision of the whole English
Bible in the light of the fullest modern knowledge and the best
Biblical scholarship.
The history of the revision is told at sufficient length in the
preface to the Eevised Version of the New Testament. The
initiative was taken by the Convocation of 'the province of Canter-
bury, In Febmary of the year 1870 a definite proposal was made
that a revision of the Authorised Version should be taken into
consideration. In May the broad principles of the revision were
laid down in a series of resolutions, and a committee of sixteen
members was appointed to execute the work, with power to add to
its numbers. The committee divided itself into two companies,
one for each Testament, and invitations were issued to all
the leading Biblical scholars of the United Kingdom to take
part in the work. The invitations were not confined to members
THE BEVI8ED VEBSIOK 237
of the Church of England. The English Bible is the Bible of
Nonconformists as well as of the Established Church, and repre-
sentatives of the Nonconformist bodies took their seats among
the revisers. Thus were formed the two companies to whom the
Revised Version is due. Each company consisted originally of
twenty-seven members, but deaths and resignations and new
appointments caused the exact numbers to vary from time to,
time ; and it cannot be questioned that most of the leading
Biblical scholars of the day were included among them. Further,
when the work had barely begun, an invitation was sent to the
churches of America asking their co-operation ; and, in accord-
ance with this invitation, two companies were formed in America,
to whom all the results of the English companies were communi-
cated. The suggestions of the American revisers were carefully
and repeatedly considered, and those of their alterations on which
they desired to insist, when they were not adopted by their English
colleagues, were recorded in an appendix to the published version.
The Eevised Version is, consequently, the work not of the English
Church alone, nor of the British Isles alone, but of all the English-
speaking churches throughout the world ; only the Roman Catho-
lics taking no part iii it.
The methods of the revision left little to be desired in the
way of care and deliberation. The instructions to the Revisers
(which are given in full in their preface) required them to intro-
duce as few alterations as possible consistently with faithfulness ;
to use in such alterations the language of the Authorised or earlier
versions, where possible ; to go over their work twice, in the first
revision deciding on alterations by simple majorities, but finally
making or retaining no change except two-thirds of those present
approved of it. Thus the Revised Version represents the deliberate
opinions of a large majority of the best scholars of all English*
speaking churches in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
It was on the twenty-second of June 1870 that the members
of the New Testament Company, having first received the Holy
Communion in "Westminster Abbey, held their first meeting in the
238 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS,
Jerusalem Chamber; the Old Testament Company entered on
their work eight days later. It was on the eleventh of November
1880 that the New Testament Revisers set their signatures to the
preface of their version, which finally issued from the press in
May 1881. The Old Testament preface is dated the tenth of
July 1884, and the entire Bible, with the exception of the
Apocrypha,* was published in May 1885. The New Testament
company records that it sat for about forty days in each year for
ten years. The Old Testament revision occupied 792 days in a
space of fourteen years. Whatever judgment be passed on the
merits of the Revised Version, it cannot be held to have been
made precipitately, or without the fullest care and deliberation.
What, then, of the results ? Is the Revised Version a worthy
successor to the Authorised Bible which has entered so deeply into
the life of Englishmen ? Has it added fresh perfection to that
glorious work, or has it laid hands rashly upon sacred things?
What, in any case, are the characteristics of the revision of 1881-5
as compared with the version on which it is based ?
The first class of changes introduced in the Revised Version
consists of those which are due to a difference in the text
translated ; and these are most conspicuous and
^^Th^ETv^sed ^ niost important in the New Testament. The
Version: version of 1611 was made from a Greek text
A. Changes in text. ... . ^ -
formed by a comparison of very few manuscripts,
and those, for the most part, late (see p. 99), The version of
1881, on the other hand, was made from a Greek text based upon an
exhaustive examination, extending over some two centuries, of all
the best manuscripts in existence. In Dr. Hort and Dr, Scrivener
the New Testament Company possessed the two most learned
* The revision of the Apocrypha was not initiated by Convocation, but by the
University Presses, which commissioned a company, formed from the Old and
New Testament Companies, to undertake the work. Material for the revision,
is comparatively scanty, but the Variorum Edition, by the Rev. C. J. Ball, 1892,
is accepted both in England and in Germany as a very important contribution
to this branch of Biblical literature. As this sheet is finally going to press, the
Bevised Apocrypha is announced for immediate publication.
THE REVISED VEB8I0N. 239
textual critics then alive ; and when it is remembered that no
change was finally accepted unless it had the support of tWo-thirds
of those present, it will be seen that the Greek text underlying the
Eevised Version has very strong claims on our acceptance.* No
one .edition of the Greek text was followed by the Revisers, each
reading being considered on its own merits ; but it is certain that
the edition and the textual theories of Drs. Westcott and Hort^
which were communicated to the Revisers in advance of the
publication of their volumes, had a great influence on the text
ultimately adopted, while very many of their readings which were
not admitted into the text of the Revised Version, yet find a
place in the margin. The Greek text of the New Testament of
1881 has been estimated to differ from that of 1611 in no less
than 5,788 readings, of which about a quarter are held notably to
modify the subject-matter ; though even of these only a small
proportion can be considered as of first-rate importance. The
chief of these have been referred to on p. 3, but the reader who
wishes for a fuller list may compare the Authorised and Revised
readings in such passages as : Matt. 1, 25 ; 5. 44 ; 6. 13; 10, 8 ;
11. 23 ; 17. 21 ; 18. 11 ; 19. 17 ; 20. 22; 23. 14; 2*. 36 ; 27. 36.
Mark 7. 19 ; 9. 44, 46, 49 ; 15. 28 ; 16. 9-20. Luke 1. 28 ;
2. 14 ; 9. 35, 54, 55 ; 11. 2-4 ; 17. 36 ; 23. 15, 17, John 4. 42 ;
5. 3, 4 ; 6. 69 ; 7. 53—8. 11 ; 8. 59. Acts 4. 25 ; 8. 37 ; 9. 5 ;
16. 18, 34 ; 18. 5, 17, 21 ; 20. 15 ; 24. 6^8 ; 28. 16, 29. Rom.
3. 9 ; 4. 19 ; 7. 6 ; 8. 1 ; 9. 28 ; 10. 15 ; 11. 6 ; 14. 6 ; 16. 5, 24.
1 Cor. 2. 1 ; 6. 20 ; 8. 7 ; 11. 24, 29 ; 15. 47. 2 Cor. 1. 20 ; 12. 1.
Gal. 3. 1,17; 4. 7 ; 6. 1. Eph. 3. 9, 14 ; 5. 30. Phil. 1. 16, 17.
Col. 1. 2, 14; 2. 2, 18. 1 Thess. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3, 3, 16 ; 6. 5, 19.
2 Tim. 1. 11. Heb. 7. 21. 1 Peter 4. 14. 1 John 4. 8 ; 6. 7, 8, 13.
Jude 23. Rev. 1.8, 11 ; 2.3 ; 6.10 ; 11.17 ; 14.5 ; 16.7 ; 21.24; 22. 14.
* The Eevisers* Greek text has been edited by Archdeacon Palmer at
Oxford, and Dr. Scrivener at Cambridge ; and it would be a great gain if this
could be adopted in our schools and universities as the standard text of the
Greek Testament, in place of the old "received text," which every scholar
knows to be imperfect.
240 OUB BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPIS,
™ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ » ■^ I- — ■ ■ -— ■■--■ ■■■■ - _■ ■ ■■!<
This list, which any reader of the Variorum Bible may extend in-
definitely for himself (with the advantage of having the evidence
for and against each change succinctly stated for him), contains
some of the more striking passages in which the Eevised Version is
translated from a different Greek text from that used in the Autho-
rised Version, and fetv scholars will be found to deny that in nearly
every case the text of the Eevised Version is certainly superior.
In the Old Testament the case is different. This isoiot because
the translators of the Old Testament in the Authorised Version
were more careful to select a correct text than their colleagues of
the New Testament, but simply because our knowledge of the Old
Testament text has not increased since that date to anything like the
extent that it has in respect of the New Testament. As we have
seen in the earlier chapters, all extant manuscripts of the Hebrew
Scriptures contain what is known as the Massoretic text, and they
do not greatly differ among themselves. Such differences of reading
as exist are traced by a collation of the early versions, e.g, the
Septuagint or the Vulgate ; but we know too little as yet of the
character and history of these versions to follow them to any great
extent in preference to the Hebrew manuscripts. The Eevisers,
therefore, had no choice but to translate, as a rule, from the
Massoretic text ; and consequently they were translating sub-
stantially the same text as that which the authors of King James's
• Version had before them. This is one explanation of the fact,,
which is obvious to every readei*, that the Old Testament is much
less altered in the Eevised Version than the New ; * and the
reader who wishes to learn the improvements which might be
introduced by a freer use of the ancient versions must be referred
to the notes in the Variorum Bible.
* A well known example of an altered reading occurs in Isa. 9. 3 (the first
lesson for Christmas Day), " Thou hast multiplied the people and not increased
the joy ; they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest," etc. ; the
marginal reading being to him. In the Revised Version these readings change
places, " his " (lit. to him) being in the text, and not in the margin. The note
in the Variorum Bible explains that in the Hebrew both readings are pro-
nounced alike.
THE REVISED J'ERSION. 241
The situation is reversed when we come to consider the diflFer-
ences, not of text but of interpretation, between the Authorised
Version and the Eevised. Here the advance is
inter^etation. greater in the Old Testament than in the New,
and again the reason is plain. The translators
of the New Testament in the Authorised Version were gener-
ally able to interpret correctly the Greek text which they had
before them, and theit work may, except in a few. passages, be
taken as a faithful rendering of an imperfect text. On the other
hand, Hebrew was less well known in 1611 than Greek, and the
passages in which the Authorised Version fails to represent the
original are far more numerous in the Old Testament than in the
New. The reader who will take the trouble to compare the
Authorised and Eevised Versions of the prophetical and poetical
books will find a very considerable number of places in which the
latter has brought out the meaning of passages which in the former
were obscure. To some extent the same is the case with the
Epistles of St. Paul, where, if we miss much of the familiar
language of the Authorised Version, we yet find that the connec-
tion between the sentences and the general course of the argument
are brought out. more clearly than before. But it is in the Old
Testament, in Job, in Ecclesiastes, in Isaiah and the other
Prophets, that the gain is most manifest, and no one who cares
for the meaning of what he reads can afford to neglect the light
thrown upon the obscure passages in these books by the Eevised
Version.*
Besides differences in text and differences in interpretation, we
C. Changes in ^^^ ^^ ^^® Eevised Version very many differ-
langnage. ences in language. By far the greater number
of the changes introduced by the Eevisers are of this class.
* The mottt striking single passage in the New Testament where the Eevised
Version has altered the interpretation of the Authorised Version is Acts 26. 28,
where for the familiar " almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian " we find
*' With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian," — un-
questionably a more correct translation of the Greek.
S 2764. Q
242 OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCBIPTS.
and it is ou them that the general acceptance, or other-
wise, of the new translation very largely depends. Sometimes
these changes embody a slight change of meaning, or remove
a word which has acquired in course of time a meaning different
from that which it originally had. Such are the substitution of
" Sheol " or " Hades " for "hell," "condemnation" for " damna-
tion," and " love " for " charity " (notably in 1 Cor. 13). Others
are attempts at slightly greater accuracy in reproducing the pre-
cise tenses of the verbs used in the Greek, as when in John 17. 14
" the world hated them " is substituted for " the world hath hated
them." Others, again, are due to the attempt made to represent
the same Greek word, wherever it occurs, by the same English
word, so far as this is possible. The translators of the Authorised
Version were avowedly indifferent to this consideration ; or
rather, they deUberately did the reverse. Where there were two
or more good English equivalents for a Greek word, they
did not wish to seem to cast a slight upon one of them by
always using the other, and so they used both interchangeably**
* See the Translators* Preface (unfortunately omitted from our ordinary
Bibles, but very rightly inserted in the Variorum Bible, p. xxiii.): "Another
thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied
ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some
peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some
learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly,
that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before,
if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there be some words
that be not of the same sense every where,) we were especially careful, and
made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the
same notion in the same particular word ; as for example, if we translate the
Hebrew or Ghreek word once by purpose, never to call it intent ; if one where
journeying, never travelling ; if one where thinhy never suppose ; if one where
pain, never ache ; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. thus to mince the
matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather
it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For
is the kingdom of God become words or syllables ? "Why should we be in
bondage to them, if we may be free ? use one precisely, when we may use
another no less fit as commodiously ? . . . Now if this happen in better times,
and upon so small occasions, we might justly feel hard censure, if generally we
should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged
THE NEVISED VEIiSIOy, ^43
The Revisers of 1881-5 took a different view of their duty.
Sometimes the point of the ])asrage depends on the same or
different words being used, and here it is misleading not to follow
the Greek closely. So much weight is laid on the exact words
of the Bible, so many false conclusions have been drawn from
its phrases by those who are not able to examine the meaning
of those phrases in the original Gi'eek or Hebrew, that minute
accuracy in reproducing the exact language of the original is
highly desirable, if it can be had without violence to the idioms of
the English tongue. One special class of passages to which this
prmciplc has been applied occurs in the first three Gospels. In
these the same events ai*e often recorded in identical words, prov-
ing that the three narratives have some common origin ; but in
the Authorised Vereion this identity is often obscured by the use
of diflPerent renderings of the same words in the various Gospels.
The Revisers have been careful to reproduce exactly the amount of
similarity or of divergence which is to be found in the original
(ireek of such passages.
Wliat, then, is the final value of the Revised Version, and what
is to be in future its relation to the Authorised
Revised^Version* Version to which we have been so long accus-
tomed ? On the first appearance of the Revised
-Xew Testament it was received with much unfavourable criticism.
(by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of gooil
KngHiih words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he
should say, that those logs M'cre happy that were made images to be wor-
shipped ; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the lire : so
if we should say, as it were, unto certain words. Stand up higher, have a place,
in the Jiible always ; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished
for ever; we might be taxed peradvcnture with St. Jarm^s words, namely.
To he partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Add hereunto, that
niceness in words was always coimted the next step to trifling ; and so was to
be curious about names too : also that we cannot follow a better pattern for
elocution than God Himself; therefore He using divers words in His holy
writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature : we, if we will not be super-
stitious, may iise the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew an<l
Greeh\ for that copy or store that He hath given us."
S 27C4, II
244 OUn niBLK AM) THE ANCIEST MANUSCRIPTS.
Dean Burjroii of Chichester, occupying towards it much the
same position as Dr. Hugh Broughton in relation to the Author-
ised Version, assailed it vehemently in the Quartei^ly Retneir
with a series of articles, the unquestionable learning of whicli
was largely neutralised by the extravagance and intemper-
nnce of their tone. The Dean, however, was not alone in his
dislike of the very numerous changes introduced by the Revisers
into the familiar language of the English Bible, and there was a
general unwillingness to adopt the new translation as a substitute
for the Authorised Version in common use. When, four years
later, the revision of the Old Testament was put forth, the popular
verdict was more favourable. The improvements in interpretation
of obscure passages were obvious, while the chauges of language
were less numerous ; moreover, the language of the Old Testament
books being less familiar than that of the Gospels, the changes in
it |)assed with less observation. Scholars, however, were not by
any means universally satisfied with it, and the reviews in the
principal magazines, such as the Quarterlij and Edinburgh^
were liot favourable. It must be remembered, however, that most
of the leading scholars of the countrv were members of the
i-evision companies, and that the reviews, as a rule, were neces-
sarily written by those who had not taken part in the work. The
grounds of criticism, in the case of both Testaments, were two-foU ;
either the critics objected on scientific grounds to the readings
adopted by the Revisers, or they protested against the numerous
changes in the language, as making the Revised Version less
suitable than its predecessor to be the Bible of the people. But
with respect to the first class of criticisms, it may fairly be
supposed that the opinion of the Revisei's is entitled to greater
weight than that of their critics. In a work involving thousands
of details, concerning many hundreds of which the evidence is
nearly equally balanced, it was not to be supposed that a result
could be reached whicli would satisfy in every point either each
member of the revision companies themselves, or each critic out-
side ; and consequently the less weight can be attached to the
THE REVISED VERSION. 245
fact that reviewers, who themselves had taken no direct part in
the work, found many passages on which their own opinion
differed from that to which the majority of the Revisers had
come. As regards the fitness of the new translation to be the Bible
of the people, that question will be decided neither by the Revisers
nor their critics, but by the people ; and it is impossible as yet to
forecast their ultimate verdict. AVe who have been brought u])
entirely on the Authorised Version, to whom many of its phrases
are the most familiar words in our language, are hardly able to
judge fairly of the literary merits of the Revision. For a long
time, in any case, the two versions must exist side by side ; and it
will be a generation that has become familiar with both of them
that will decide whether or not the Revised Version is to supersede
the Authorised Version, as the Vulgate, after a long struggle,
superseded the Old Latin, and as the Authorised Version super-
seded the Bible of the Elizabethan Bishops.
So ends, for the present, the history of the English Bible. We
have talked much in this book of divergent manuscripts, of
versions, of corruptions, of revisions. It is good to end with a
re-affirmation of that with which we began, and to remind the
reader that through all these variations of detail it is the same
unchanged Word of (lod that has come down to us. Men have
been careless at times of the exact form in which they had it ;
they are rightly jealous now for the utmost accuracy that it is
possible to attain. But whether men were careless or careful,
(lod has so ordered it that the substantial tniths of the Christian
story and the Christian faith have never been lost from His Word.
Men might draw from it false or imperfect conclusions of their
own ; but their little systems have arisen, have had their day
and ('eased to be, while still, unchanged and unchangeable, the
Word of the Tiord abideth for ever.
^
This Table contfiie same passage as it appears in the
Wycliffite Biie statoineiit made in the text, that the
foundation oh influenee upon subsequent translations ;
but in Tyndjrsion. Matthew's Bible gives Tyndale's
version as iine extract from Tyndale is taken from
Mr. F. Fry's
Tyndale, 1525.
God in tyme past
(liversly and many
waves, spake vnto the
fathers by prophets :
Imt in these last dayes
lui hath spoken vnto
vs by hys sonne.whom
lie hath made heyre of
all thyngs : by whom
also he made the
worlde. Which sonne
beynge the brightnes
of his glory, and very
ymage oil his sub-
stance, bearynge vppe
all thyngs with the
worde of his power,
hath in his awne per-
son pourged oure
synnes, and is sytten
on the right honde of
the maiestie an hye,
and is more excellent
then the angels in as
mocho as he hath by
inheritaiince obteyn-
etl jint'xcellentername
then have they.
For vnto which off
the angels sayde he at
cny tyme : Thou arte
my Sonne, this daye
begate 1 the'r And
agaync: I will be his
father, and he shalbe
my Sonne. And a-
gayne when he bryng-
fth in the fyrst be-
gotten sonne in the
worlde, he sayth : And
all the angels of god
shall worshippe hyni.
And vnto the angels
he sayth : He niaketh
his angels spretes, and
his ministers flarames
of fyre. But vnto the
sonne he sayth : God
thy seate shal be for
ever and ever. The
eepter of thy kyngdom
is a right cepter. Thou
hast loved rightewes-
nes and hated ini-
i[uitie: Wherf ore hath
god, which is thy god,
anoynted the with the
oyle off gladnes above
Ihy felowes.
ew
)2.
lany
past
• the
pro-
J in
spo-
nne,
ap-
: al,
lade
des.
the
his
5ure
nee,
ings
his
pur-
, sit-
ight
;stie
ces:
luch
?els,
ited
lent
m.
rthe
said
V/o«
day
heet
il be
and
le a
■ hen
geth
•iten
!, he
I the
dure
? A n-
Hith,
t his
tea:
vs, a
But
Thy
for
I rod
id of
Vhou
ttiee,
itie :
God,
'Ant-
te of
ethy
! The Authorised
I Version, 1611.
I 1 God who at sundry
I times, and in diuers
I manners, spake in time
I past vnto tbe Fathers
! by the Prophets,
j 2 Hath in these last
dayes spoken vnto vs
by his Sonne, whom
I he hath appointed
' heire of all things, by
I whom also he made
the worlds,
;' 3 Who being the
! brightnesse of his glo-
ry, and the expresse
I image of his person,
and vpholdiug all
things by the word of
j his power, when hee
had by himselfe pureed
I our sinnes, sate down
, on y right hand of the
Maiestie on high, •
I 4 Being made so much
better then the An-
gels, as hee hath by
I inheritance obtained
\ a more excellent JN ame
then they.
I 5 For vnto which of
I the Angels said he at
, any time. Thou art my
sonne, this day haue 1
begotten thee i And a-
gaiii, 1 will be to him
a Father, and he shall
, be to me a Sonne.
; 6 And again, when he
bringeth in the lirst
begotten into the
world, hee saith. And
let all the Angels of
God worship him.
7 And of tlie Angels
he saith : W ho maketh
his Angels spirits, and
his ministers a flame
of lire.
8 But vnlo the Sonne,
he saith. Thy throne,
O (jiod, is for euer
and euer : a scepter of
righteousnesse is the
'■ siepter of thy king-
dome.
9 Thou hast loued
righteousnesse, and
hated iniquitie, there-
fore (io&,euen thy God
hath anointed thee
with the oyle of glad-
nesse aboue thy fel-
lowes.
\
The Eevised Ver-
sion, 1881.
1 God, having of old
time spoken unto
the fathers in the
prophets by divers
portions and in di-
2 vers mannera, hath
at the end of these
days spoken unto us
in his Son, whom
he appointed heir of
all things, through
whom also he made
3 the worlds ; who be-
ing the effulgence of
his glory, and the
very image of his
substance, and up-
holding all things
by the word of his
power, when he had
made puriti(*ation of
sins.sat down on the
right hand of the
Majesty on high ;
4 having become by so
much better than
the angels, as he hath
inherited a more ex-
cellent name than
5 they. Foruntowhich
of the angels said he
at any time.
Thou art my Son,
This day have I
begotten theeV
and again,
1 will be to him a
Father,
And he shall be to
me a Son V
6 And when he again
bringeth in the lirst-
bom into the world,
he saith, And let all.
the angels of God
worship him.
7 And of the angels lie
saith.
Who maketh his
angels winds.
And his ministers
a flame of tire :
8 but of the Son he
saith,
Thythrone,OGod.
is for ever and
ever;
And the sceptre
of uprightness is
the sceptre of
thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved
righteousness,
and hated ini-
quity ;
Therefore CioAJXx^
^
INDEX.
^Ifric, Archbishop, translatioji of
O.T. hy, 195.
African Latin version of Bible, 77, 78,
167, 168.
Akiba, Eabbi, his share in fixing
Hebrew text of 0. T., 90.
Alcuin, revision of Vulgate by, 182-
184.
Aldhelm, Bishop, his version of the
Psalter, the first English transla-
tion from the Bible, 190.
Aldred, translates Gospels into Eng-
lish, 193.
Alexandrian readings in N. T. 109,
110.
Alfred, King, translates parts of the
Bible, 192.
America, participation of, in Revised
Version, 237.
Apocrypha, books of, their character
and history, 28, ^0, 51; Syriac .
version of, 74, 7-5 ; Latin version,
78, 79.
Aqnila, Greek version of 0. T. by, 52.
Arabic versions of N.T., 165.
Aiamaic language, adopted by Jews
after the Captivity, 29.
Armenian version of N. T., 164,
Augustine, quotations by, from N. T.,
167, 169.
Authorised Version, the, 229-234.
Babylon, Je-^sh school of Biblical
tradition at, 29, 30, 38.
8 2764.
Bancro^, Bishop, probable author of
instructions for preparation of
Authorised Version, 231.
Barnabas, Epistle of, in Codex Sinai-
ticus, 124.
Bede, his translation of St. John's
Gospel, 191^
Bengel, J. A., edition of Greek N. T.
by, 117.
Bentley, Eiehard, collections made
by, for critical edition of Greek
N. T., 116 ; for edition of Vulgate,
171.
Beza, editions of Greek N. T. by,
99 ; owned iClodd. Bezae and Claro-
montanus, il39, 144 ; his infljaence
on the Geneva Bible, 225, 226.
Bishops' Bible, the, 226-228.
Bohairic version of 0. T., 76 ; of N. T.,
160-162.
Broughton, Dr. Hugh, attacks Autho-
rised Version, 231.
Burgon, Dean, his contributions to
textual criticis^n of N. T., 119;
attacks Bevised Version, 244.
Caedmon^ makes poetical paraphrase
of Kble in English, 190.
Canon of 0. T., formation of^ 26-28.
Chapter-divisjoij of Bible, made by
Stephen Langton, 186.
Charlemagne, invites Alcuin to revise
Vulgate, 182; Golden Gospels of,
183.
T
250
INDEX,
Cheke, Sir John, his translation of the
Gospels, 224,
Chrysostom, quotations from 0, T. by,
70; fromN.T., 109.
Clay tablets, use of, for writing, 18, 20.
Clement, Epistles of, in Codex Alex-
andrinus, 129, 132,
Clement VIII., Pope, causes autho-
rised edition of Vulgate to be
prepared, 188.
Cochlaeus, interrupts printing of Tyn*
dale's N.T., 212.
Codex Aleaiandrinus, in 0. T., 60, 70 ;
its history, 129, 130 ; description,
131 ; its readings and character in
N.T., 130-132.
Ambrosianus, 62.
— Amiatinus, 171, 172.
Basiliano-Vaticantis, 63.
Basiliensis, 145.
Ben-Asher, of O.T., 40.
Bezae, 107, 110, 139-144, 168,
Bobiensis, 168.
' Borgianus, 148,
Brixianus, 168.
Cavensis, 172.
Claromontanus, 144, 145, 168.
Coislinianus, 63, 69.
Colbertinus, 168.
Corbeiensis, 168.
Cryptoferratensis, 65.
Dublinensis, of O.T., 63, 70 ; of
N.T.,.148.
Ephraemi, of 0. T., 61 ; of N. T.,
109, 137-139.
Fuldensis, 172.
Gigas, 168.
Guelpherbytanus, A and B, 147.
Hillelis, 40.
Laudianus (Gk. and !Lat.), 145,
I
146, 168.
— Laudianus (Hebrew), 40.
— Marchalianus, 64, 69, 70.
— Nitriensis, 147.
— Palatinus, 168.
-^ Petropolitanus (Gk.), 62.
Codex Regius, 107, 146, 147.
Sangallensis, 148.
-^^=™- Sarravianus, 56, 62, 69.
Sinaiticus, in O.T., 59, 60, 71 ;
its history, 122-124 ; description,
124 ; its readings and character in
N.T., 107, 111, 125-128.
- ■ .1 Taurinensis, 65.
Toletanus, 172.
Vallicellianus, 182.
— .^ Vaticanus, in O.T., 60, 61, 71 ;
its history, 133, 134 ; description,
134, 135 ; its readings and cha-
racter in N.T., 107, 111, 135-137.
Venetus, 63, 65, 70.
=«• Vercellensis, 167.
Veronensis, 168.
Zacynthius, 148.
; for descriptions of other MSS.,
see Manuscript.
Complutensian Polyglott Bible, 41, 67.
Conflate readings, 108.
Constantine, Emperor, orders copies
of the Scriptures, 96.
Constantinople, capture of, by Turks,
its influence on history of the Bible,
209.
Coptic language, 75 ; versions of 0. T.,
75, 76; of N.T., 107, 160-164.
Coyerdale, Miles, makes flrst complete
English printed Bible, 218, 219;
edits Great Bible, 221.
Crannier, Archbishop, owns early
English Gospels, 195 •; promotes
Matthew's Bible, 220 ; writes prer
fkce to Great Bible, 222.
Cromwell, Thomas, promotes Cover-
dale's Bible, 218 ; procures license
for Matthew's Bible, 220 ; promotes
Great Bible and orders its use, 223.
Curetonian Syriac version of N.T.,
152-157.
Cuthbert, St., Lindisfarne Gospels
written in his honour, 180, 181.
Cyprian, quotations by, from N. T.,
167, 169.
INDEX.
251
l)aniel, Theodotion^s vei?sion of, in*
corporated in Septuagint, 53.
De Rossi, collection of readings of
Hebrei^r MSS. by, 41.
iDiocletian^ edict of, for destruction ot
Christian books, 96*
Douai 0. T.> 228, 229»
Elzevir edition of Greek N. T*, the
"received" text on the Continent)
99.
England, MSS. of Vulgate current in,
178-181 ; derive ornamentation
from Ireland, 178 ; and texts from
Italy, 179, 180. Earliest transla-
tions of the Bible, 190. History of
English Bible, 189-245.
Erasmus, edits first printed edition of
Greek N. T., 98, 99.
Estienne, Robert. See Stephanus.
Ethiopic version of 0. T., 76> 77 ; of
N.T., 165.
European Latin version of Bible, 78,
167, 169.
Eusebius of Caesarea, edition of Septu-
agint by, 56 ; MSS. of this edition,
69 ; prepares copies of Greek Bible
for Constantino, 96.
Fathers, use of quotations from, in
textual criticism, 15, 105, 109.
Field, F., edition of Hexat>la by, 56,
68, 70.
Firkowitzsch, dates of Hebrew MSS.
falsified by, 40.
Gasquet, Father, his theory as to
authorship of Wycliffite Bible,
204-208.
Gaunt, John of, supports Wycliffe,
199, 206.
Genesis, Cotton MS. of, 61 ; Bodleian
MS., ib, ; Vienna MS., 63.
Genef a Bible, the, 225, 226.
Gheniza, reCeptdcle foi^ damaged He-
brew MSS., 87.
Golden Gt>spels of Charlemagne, the,
183, 184.
Gospels, earliest translation of into
English, 193; the Version of, in
tenth century, 193-195.
Gothic version of 0. T., 77 ; of N. T.>
165.
Great Bible, the, 221-223 ; Psalter of,
retained in our Prayer-Book, 223.
Griesbach, J. J., editioU of Greek N.T.
by, 117; his classification of MSS.,t6.
Gwilliam, G* H., edition of Peshitto
Syriac by, 157, 158.
Hagiographa, date of their adoption
into the Hebrew Canon of Scripture,
28.
Harkleian Syriac version of N.T., 158.
Hartmut, Abbot, establishes school of
St. Gall, 185.
Hebrew Bible, early printed editions,
41.
Hebrew characters, history of, 23.
Hebrew language, history of, 25.
Hebrew manuscripts, regulations for
copying, 34 ; dates of, 35, 38, 40 ; old
copies destroyed, 36, 37 ; the chief
ektant MSS., 39, 40.
Hebrew text of 0. T., history of, 29-
36 ; instances of corruption, 87.
Hereford, Nicholas, translates part of
Wycliffite Bible, 200, 201.
Hennas, the " Shepherd " of, in Codex
Sinaiticus, 124.
Hesychius of Alexandria, edition of
Septuagint by, 57 ; MSS. of this
edition, 70.
Hexapla, of Origen, 54-66.
Holmes and Parsons, edition of Septu-
agint, 68.
Homer, G., edition of Bohairic ver-
sion by, 161.
252
Dmist.
ft
Hort, Prof., his theory of textual
criticism of N.T., 107-115, 119.
Howorth, Sir H., his attack on the
Massoretic text of the 0. T., 86, 90.
Irenseus, quotations hy, from N.T.,
106, 109, 167.
Irish MSS. of Vulgate, 177, 178;
their illuminations, ih.
Italian Latin version of Bible, 78,
167, 169.
James I., King, prcrmotes Authorised
Version, 230.
Jeremiah, different order of prophecies
in Septuagint, 72.
Jerome, St., his Latin version of the
Bible (the Vulgate), 79-83, 169-171.
Job, Septuagint version of, shorter
than Hebrew, 53, 76; Old Latin
version of, revised by Jerome, 8 1 .
Jonathan ben Uzziel, Targum of, 30.
Jubilees, Book of, supports Septuagint
text of Genesis against Hebrew, 88.
Kennicott, collection of readings of
HebrewMSS. by, 41.
Kri, readings in Hebrew text, 38.
Kthib, readings in margins Of Hebrew
MS9., 38.
Lachmann, C, edition of Greek N. T.
by, 118.
Lagarde, edition of Ltician's Septua-
gint by, 68.
Latin versions of 0. T., 77-83; of
N.T., 166-173.
Lindisfame Gospels, the, 179-181 ;
interlinear translation into English,
193.
Lollards, not persecuted on account
of their English Bible, 206, 207.
Lucar, Cyril, presents Codex Alexan-
drintis to Charles I., 128.
Lucian of Samosata, edition of Septua-
gint by, 67 ; MSS. of this edition,
69, 70,
M<=Clellan, J. B., edition of the Gos-
pels by, 120.
Manuscripts : meaning of term, 5 ;
use of, in recorrering triie text, 12 ;
different forms of, 18-22. Uncial
and cursive MSS., 68, /J9, 101-103.
for descriptions of individual
MSS., see Codex ; also the follow-
ing:^
Anglo-Saxon Gospels, 194, 196.
Armenian MSS., 164.
Bible of Charlemagne, 182.
Bible of St. Hubert, 186.
Bodleian Genesis, 61.
„ Psalter, 62.
Bohairic MSS., 161.
Bookof Kells, 178.
British Museum MS. of Pen-
tateuch, 39.
Cotton Genesis, 61.
Curetonian SyriacMS., 153,1 66.
Gothic MS., of Ulfilas, 166.
Harleian Gospels, 172.
Lindisfarne Gospels, 172, 179-
181, 193.
Papyrus Psalter, 66.
Peshitto Syriac MSS. of O.T.,
74; ofN.T., 167.
Eush^v^orth MS.y 193.
Sahidic MSS., 163.
St. Petersburg MS. of the
Prophets, 39.
'Samaritan MSS., 47.
Sinaitic Syriac MS., 154.
Stonyhurst Gospels, 172.
Theodulf s revised Vulgate,l 86.
Verona Psalter, 66.
Vienna Genesis, 63.
Zurich Psalter, 66.
nwEx.
2Da
Mark, last twelve yerses of Gospel of,
7, 127, 147, 164.
Martin, Gregory, principal author of
Kheims and Doaai Bible, 229.
Massorah, in Hebrew MSS., 32, 33, 35.
Massoretes, tbe, fixing of Hebrew text
by, 32, 33. '
Mattbsei, C.F., edition of Greek N. T.,
by, 117.
Matthew's Bible, 220.
Mazarin Bible, first printed book, 187-
Memphitic version. See Bohairic ver-
sion.
Mill, John, edition of Greek N. T.
by, 116.
Moabite Stone, the, 24.
More, Sir T., attacks Tyndale's N. T.,
213.
Nablous, copy of Samaritan Penta-
teuch at, 47.
Naples, text of Lindisfarne Gospels
derived from, 179.
Neutral text of N. T., 109, 111.
New Testament, original MSS. of, 93,
94 J conditions under which it was
copied in early times, 95 ; the extant
MSS., 96, 97, 101-103, 121-149
printed editions, 98-100, 116-120
ancient versions, 103, 104, 151-173
classification of MSS., 106-115.
Nitria, Syriac MSS. brought from,
74, 152.
Nycolson, printer of English Bible,2 1 9.
Old Latin version, of 0. T., 77-79; of
N.T., 166-169 ; MSS. of, 167, 168 ;
character of text, 107, 169.
Old Testament, original MSS. of, 21 ;
classification of books in, 26 ; for-
mation of Canon, 26-28 ; Hebrew
text, 23-48 ; Septuagint text, 48-
73 ; other versions, 73-83 ; general
condition of the text, $3-92.
Onkelos, TargUm of, 30.
Origen, Hexapla of, 54-r56.
Ormulum, metrical translations from
the Bible in, 196.
Oxford, University of, supports Wy-
cliffe, 199, 200, 206.
Palestinian Syriac version of N. T.,
159.
Palmer, Archdeacon, edition of the
Revisers' Greek text by, 239.
Papyrus, use of, for writing, 19, 21^
94.
Pans, University of, promotes re-
vision of Vulgate, 186.
Parker, Archbishop, editor of Bishops*
Bible, 226.
Pentateuch, date of its adoption into
the Hebrew Canon of Scripture, 27.
reshitto, Syriac version of Bible, 74,
157, 158.
Philips, betrayer of Tyndale, 216«
Philoxenian Syriac version of N^T.,
158.
Printing, importance of invention of,
in history of Bible, 209.
Prophets, the, date of their adoption
into the Hebrew Canon of Scripture,
28.
Psalter, three Latin versions of,
Eoman, Gullican, and Hebrew, 80v
, translated into English by Aid-
helm, 190; by Alfred, 192; by
anonymous translators, 192, 196 ;
by William of Shoreham, 196 ; by
Richard Rolle, 197; Pfayer-Book
version, derived from Great Bible,
223.
Purvey, John, probable author of
revised Wydiffite Bible, 201.
Revised Version, the, its history, 237,
238; its characteristics, 239-243;
its reception, 243-245.
254
INDEX,
Rheims N. T., 228, 229.
Hogers, John, produces Matthew's
Bible, 220; martyred, 224.
BoUe, Richard, of Hampole, translates
Psalter, 197.
Rushworth MS. of G-ospelS) Lat. and
Eng.) 193*
Sahidic version of 0. T.» 76 ; of N. T.,
162, 163.
St. Grail, school of copyists at, 185.
Samaritan characters, 23.
Pentateuch, 44-48.
Sanday, Prof., Oxford Greek Testa-
ment edited by, 120.
Scribes, mistakes of, 6-7.
Scrivener, F. H. A., his contributions
to textual criticism of N. T., 119.
Septuagint, origin of, 49, dO ; con-
tents, 50, 51; history, 51-57;
MSS. of, 59-67 ; printed editions,
67, 68. Comparison "with Hebrew-
text of O.T., 71, 85-92.
Shapira, forged copy of Deuteronomy
produced by, 43.
Shoreham, William of, translates
Psalter, 196, 197.
Siloam, inscription in conduit of, 24.
Simonides, C, claims to have -written
.Codex Sinaiticus, 123.
Sinaitic MS. of Old Syriac, 154-157.
Sixtus, v., Pope, promotes Roman
edition of Septuagint, 67 ; authori-
tative edition of Vulgate, 187.
Skins, use of, for writing, 21.
Solomon, Psalms of, formerly in Codex
Alexandrinus, 60.
Spanish MSS. of Vulgate, 177, 184.
Stephanus, editions of Greek N. T.
by, 99; of Vulgate, 187; introduces
verse-division, 225.
Swete, Cambridge Septuagint edited
by, 68,
Symmachus, Greek version of O.T.
by, 53.
Syriac language, 73 ; version of O.T.,
73-75; of N.T., 107, 152-159.
Syrian text of N. T., 109; supposed
due to revision at Antioch, 109,
1144
Talmud, its bearing on the Hebifew
text of the Bible, 31, 32.
Targums, 29-31.
TaVemer, R., his translation of the
Bible, 223.
Tell el-Amama, tablets found at, 17.
Textual criticism, pi?inciples of, 4-10,
105, 106.
Thebaic version. See Sahidic Ver-
sion.
Theodoret, quotations from 0. T. by,
70.
Theodotion, Greek version of 0. T* by,
53.
Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, revises
Vulgate, 184.
Tischendorf, A. F. C, editions of
Septuagint by, 68 ; of Greek N« T.,
118; discovers Codex Sinaiticus,
122, 123; his efforts to collate
Codex Vaticanus, 133, 134; pub-
lishes Codex Ephraemi, 138.
Tomson, revises Geneva N. T., 226.
Tours, school of copyists established
at, 182, 183.
Tregelles, S. P., edition of Greek N, T.
by, 119.
Tunstall, Bishop, tries to destroy
Tyndale's N.T., 213; authorises
Great Bible, 222.
Tyndale, William, his life and trans-
lation of the Bible, 211-218.
Variorum Bible described, 2, 120.
Various readings, causes of, 5-8 ;
examples of, in Gospels, 3.
Verse-division of Bible, when intro-
duced, 225.
\
INDEX,
255
Versions, use of in textual criticism, 14.
Vowel-points, errors caused by omis-
sion of, in Hebrew, 25, 88 ; Baby-
lonian system of, 39.
Vulgate, origin of, 79-81 ; its recep-
tion, 81, 82 ; its character in O.T.,
82; in N.T., 169-173; MSS. of,
170-172, 177-186 ; history of, in
Middle Ages, 174-188; printed
editions, 187, 188.
Walton, Bishop, Polygott Bible edited
by, 116.
"Westcott, Bishop, his edition (with
Hort) of Greek N. T., 107, 119.
Western text of N.T., 109, 110;
examples, 142-144.
Wetstein, J. J., edition of Greek N. T.
by, 117.
Whitchurch, printer of Great Bible,
222, mte.
White, H. J., edition of Vulgate by,
171, 188.
Whittingham, W., part-editor of
Geneva Bible, 225.
Widmanstadt, edition of Peshitto by,
167.
Wordsworth, Bishop, edition of Vul-
gate by, 171, 188.
Writing, antiquity of, 18 ; in Baby-
lonia, ib. ; in Egypt, 19 ; in Pales-
tine, 20.
Wycliffe, John, his life, 199, 200;
his Bible, 200-204 ; his authorship
questioned, 204-208.
Ximenes, Cardinal, Complutensian
Bible issued by, 41, 67, 98.
n
APPENDIX.
THE DISCOVERIES OF RECENT YEARS.
** T"TE that seeketh, findeth." Certainly, though every indi-
-LJ- vidual effort has not been crowned with success, it is
true that the active research which has characterised the last two
generations of Biblical and classical students has met with abun-
dant reward. The present reign (to employ a measure of time
which comes naturally into the mind just now) has been an age of
discoveries in this sphere of knowledge as in so many others;
and it is only in looking back at them, and reckoning them up^
that we can realise their cumulative effect. Even within the
three years which have passed since the first publication of thi»
volume, notable discoveries have been made in the department
of Biblical criticism, some account of which is necessary, to bring
the present edition up to date ; but it seems better to extend our
survey somewhat further, and to gather together the discoveries
of a rather longer period, so as to present some general picture
of the progress which the present generation has witnessed, and at
the same time to describe at somewhat greater length one or two
episodes which have been briefly passed over in the preceding pages.
The discovery with which, on these grounds, it will be con-
venient to begin this chapter is one which, so to speak, has
just "come of age" (in 1897) — The Diatessaron of Tatian. It
is a discovery which concerns both the higher
/J* ?*" and the lower, or textual, criticism of the New
Testament ; but its importance can best be made
clear by a brief narrative of its history. Tatian was a native of
Assyria, bom about a.d. 110, and converted to Christianity by
Justin Martyr (whose principal work was written about a.d. 153,
and who suffered martyrdom about a.d. 165). He died about
A.D. 180. Like his master Justin, he wrote an Apology for
Christianity ; but his chief work was a harmony of the Gospels,
entitled the Diatessaron. This Greek name implies that it is a
Gospel compiled out of four narratives, or a concord of four wit-
nesses; and before the work itself was recovered, there was a
sharp controversy with regard to its character. Our earliest in-
formant on the subject, the great Church hLstoriui Eusebius, in
S 2764. T *
11 APPEymx.
r
the fourth century, described it as '*a sort of patchwork com-
bination of the Gospels " ; and if it were compiled, as its name
seemed to imply, from the four canonical Gospels, it was decisive
evidence that in the third quarter of the second century these four
Gospels already stood out by themselves as the recognised and
auUioritative records of the life of Christ. Such a conclusion was,
however, inacceptable to those who, like Baur, contended that the
Gospels were not written till between a.d. 130 and 170 ; and con-
sequently the statement of Eusebius was disputed. The expres-
sions used by Eusebius might be taken to imply that he had not
himself seen the work; and another early writer, Epiphanius,
towards the end of the fourth century, stated that " some people "
called it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Hence it was
maintained by some that no such thing as a harmony by Tatian
existed at all, and that Tatian's Gospel was identical with the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, and that again with the Gospel
according to Peter, — ^both of them known then only by name, and
affording no evidence as to the date and authority of the canonical
books.
The controversy on this subject was at its height in 1877 when
Bishop Lightfoot wrote his well-known Essays on ^^ Supernatural
Meltgion,''' in the course of which he stated the
.Bp rem 8 arguments for the common-sense view of the
Commentary. ._^. __.,
Diatessaron. These arguments were as strong as
could reasonably be expected, so long as the Diatessaron itself was
lost; yet at that very time demonstrative evidence on the point
was in existence, though unknown to either party in the con-
troversy. So long ago as 1836 the Fathers of an Armenian com-
munity in Venice had published an Armenian version of the works
of St. Ephrem of Syria (a writer of the fourth century), among
which was a commentary on the Diatessaron ; but Armenian was
then a language little known and no attention was paid to it.
In 1876, however, the Armenian Fathers employed Dr. George
Moesinger to revise and publish a Latin version of it which had
been prepared by the original editor. Dr. Aucher. Why so im-
X^ortant a discovery still continued unnoticed is a puzzle which has
never been solved; but unnoticed it remained until 1880, when
attention was called to it by Dr. Ezra Abbot, in America, whereby
it shortly became known to scholars in general. Ephrem's com-
mentary included very large quotations from the work itself, so
APPENDIX. Ill
that its general character was definitelj established, and no re-
sponsible scholar could question the fact that the Diatessaron was
actually a harmonj of (or, more accurately, a narrative compiled
from) the four canonical Gospels.
If matters had stopped there, the discovery, though of great
importance for the " higher criticism " of the New Testament,
would have had little bearing upon textual ques-
coveryo e ^^^^^g j^^^ further developments were in store.
In the course of the investigations to which
Aucher's discovery gave rise, it was pointed out that a work pur-
porting to be an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron itself was
mentioned in an old catalogue of the Vatican Library; and on
search being made, the description was found to be correct. The
series of discoveries did not even end here ; for the Vatican
mianuscript chancing to be shown to the Vicar-Apostolic of the
Catholic Copts, while on a visit to Home, he observed that he had
seen a similar work in Egypt, which he undertook to obtain.
The second manuscript proved to be better than the first, and from
the two in conjunction the Diatessaron was at last edited by
Ciasca in 1888, and dedicated to Pope Leo xiii. in honour of
his Jubilee.
The importance of this final publication lies in the fact that it
enables us to learn something of the state of the text of the Gospels
at the time when Tatian made his compilation from
Tne Tex o e ^i^^^^ j^ jg ^^g ^^i&t we only possess the Diates-
Diatessaron. • a u- ^ *i. * •* — n
saron m Arabic, and that it was originally written
in Syriac (possibly, but less probably, in Greek, in which case it
must have been first translated into Syriac and then into Arabic) ;
but it is aifirmed by competent scholars that the Arabic shows
evident isigns of being a very close rendering of the Syriac, and
tlie character of the text supports this view. If the text of the
Diatessaron had been altered at all, it would almost inevitably
have been in the direction of assimilating it to the current text of
the Gospels ; as was actually done in Latin by Bishop Victor of
Capua, who (in a.d. 545) found a Latin harmony of the Gospels,
which he guessed might be that which Eusebius attributed to
Tatian, and published in a manuscript still extant (the Codex
Fuldensis, see p. 172), but with the Vulgate text substituted for
the older version contained in the manuscript before him. The
text of the Gospels in the Arabic Diatessarou has not, however,
T 2 *
IV APPENDIX.
I
undergone this process of assimilation to any great extent ; and
it is therefore fair to accept it as, in the main, faithfully reflect-
ing the text employed by Tatlan. And here lies the gist of the
whole discovery, from tlie textual point of view ; for the text of
the Diatessaron proves to be of the same general type as the
Curetonian version. Traces are to be found in it, in its present
form, of the Peshitto and Philoxenian versions, but its main
character is akin to the Old Syriac ; and when it is remembered
that the original compilation was made in the second century,
it will be seen that this is a strong argument in favour of the
priority of the Old Syriac over the Peshitto. If the latter version
had been extant in Tatian's time, and the Diatessaron had been
compiled from it, it is inconceivable that it should subsequently
have been corrupted by the influence of a far less popular ver-
sion ; whereas the reverse process was not only natural but almost
inevitable.
. The preceding sketch has given but a slight indication of the
many points of interest arising out of the Diatessaron ; but it is
impossible to discuss them here at greater length.
2. The^coD j^ .g ^^^ ^ p^gg ^^ ^^ other discoveries which,
'if not of equal importance, are still of considerable
value. Some of them have but little bearing upon textual matters,
and can therefore be but briefly mentioned here, however interesting
they may be in themselves. Thus in 1875, Philotheos Bryennios,
Archbishop of Serrae in Macedonia, discovered in the library of the
Holy Sepulchre at Constantinople a Greek manuscript, written
in the year 1056, in which were two early Christian treatises
hitherto wholly or in part unknown. One, which was the first to
attract his attention, was the so-called Second Epistle of Clement
of Rome, which previously had been known only in the imperfect
copy preserved in the Codex Alexandrinus {see p. 129). It was
alreaily generally recognised that the attribution of this work to
Clement was wrong, and that it was more probably written about
the middle of the second century; and the concluding portion,
discovered by Bryennios, showed that it was not an epistle at all,
but a homily. It is an interesting and important relic of early
Christian literature, containing several quotations of the sayings of
our Lord, of which one at least is not derived from the canonical
Gospels. By a curious coincidence, a few months after Bryennios'
publication, the Cambridge University Library acquired a MSJ
jlppendix:
containing a Syriac version of the two Epistles. This MS., which
was written in 1170, contains part of the New Testament accord-
ing to the Harkleian version, and the Clementine Epistles stand
between the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and are divided into
lections for use in church services. A further discovery connected
with these epistles was made in 1893, when a Latin version of the
first Epistle was discovered at Namur by Dom. G. Morin, and
published in the following year.
Bryennios published his edition of the second Clementine Epibtle
in 1875 ; but it was not until eight years later that scholars learnt
that the manuscript from which it was taken contained also a
treatise entitled *' The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," coming
evidently from a very early period in Christian
' ® ®*^ ^ history and hitherto wholly unknown, except in
name. It is a short hortatory treatise, based
apparently upon a Jewish work entitled "The Two Ways,'*
(traces of which are also found in the so-called Epistle of
Barnabas, and elsewhere), but with considerable additions of a
definitely Christian chai-acter. The first part consists of moral
precepts, mainly non-Christian, but with excerpts from the Ser-
mon on the Mount; the second relates to the organisation and
ceremonies of the Church, such as baptism, fasting, prayer, and
the ministry. The baptismal formula and the Lord's Prayer are
given as in the Gospels. The ministerial organisation is of a
primitive type, including "apostles," or travelling missionary
preachers, prophets, cr those to whom exceptional and quasi-
ecstatic powers of speech are given, teachers, bishops, and deacons.
The two last-named classes represent the permanent local organi-
sation, and the bishops are evidently of that early kind which corre-
sponds rather with our parish priests than with a modern bishop*
Hence it is clear that the treatise must either have been written not
later than the first quarter of the second century, or else was com-
posed in some retired community in which primitive institutions were
preserved to a later date than in the Church at large.
The next discovery to be mentioned is one of the most curious^
in its circumstances, recorded in literary history* In 1878 the
Armenian Fathers in YfBnice, who have already
Ir^T^^ been mentioned in connexion with the Dia-
of Aristidds.
tessaron, published a fragment of a work pur-
porting to be an Apology for Christianity, addressed by a
VI APPENDIX.
certain Aris tides to the Emperor HadriaD. Such a work was
known to have existed once, from a mention in Eusebius; but
the genuineness of the Armenian fragment was discredited, 6n
the ground that it contained theological phrases characteristic
of a later date than the second century. However, in 1889,
Mr. Kendel Harris, a Cambridge scholar, then Professor at Haver-
ford College, Pennsylvania, discovered a Syriac version of the
entire Apology in the library of the monastery on Mount Sinai,
from which Tischendorf had previously secured the great Codex
Sinaiticus ; and arrangements were made for its publication in a;
Cambridge series of Texts and Studies, While, however, it was
being printed, the editor of the series, Mr. (now Professor)
Armitage Robinson, chanced to be studying, for a wholly different
purpose, a copy of a well-known mediaeval romance called ** Bar-
laam and Josaphat"; and there, in a defence of Christianity
delivered ))y one of the characters in the romance, he was amazed
to find the very words of the Apology of Aristides. The mediaeval
writer (in the 7th or 8th century) had appropriated this early
treatise, and inserted it bodily (with certain modifications) into
his own narrative, and thereby has been the means of preserving
to us the Greek original, of* which Mr. Kendel Harris' Syriac is,
it would appear, an expanded translation. The date of the original
Apology, according to Eusebius, is a.d. 125 ; but if the title in
the Syriac version is to be trusted (the Greek of course has none),
it was really addressed, not to Hadrian, but to Antoninus Pius, one
of whose names waa likewise Hadrian. In that case the date
would fall within the years 138-161, probably near the beginning
of that period; but l^e opinions of scholars are divided on the
point. The Apology (or defence, for the word in its original
meaning has nothing of the somewhat humiliating sense which is
now attached to it), after describing the failure of the barbarians,
the Greeks, and the Jews to realise the true nature of God, claims
that the Christians have succeeded, and to illustrate this claim
draws a striking picture of the character and manners of the
Christian community, and summarises the main points of the
Christian creed* It does not explicitly quote from the Gospels,
but it refers to " the writings of the Christians " for proof of its
statements.
The Diatessaron, which was first brought to b'ght in 1876, gave
us a narrative of our Lord's life in the words of the canonical
APPENDIX, Til
Gospels. Ten years later the progress of discovery gave us one
of the non-canonical narratives which, as was know^i from
5. The Gospel Eusebius and other writers, circulated in early
and BeYelation times side by side with the canonical Four. In
of Peter. ^333 ^\^^ members of the French Archaeological
Mission in Cairo were conducting excavations in the cemetery of
Akhmim, in Upper Egypt, when they came upon a small vellum
manuscript containing fragments of three early Christian w^orks,
the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Peter, and the Eevelation of
Peter. The two last-named pieces are written in a very peculiar
hand, which has been assigned by some authorities to the eighth
century, but may more probably be referred to the sixth. The
discoverers do not seem to have realised the value of their
discovery, for they took six years in publishing it, and when
they did publish it, the editor, M. Bouriant, gave the place of
honour to the Book of Enoch, which was already known in
an Ethiopic translation, while the two Petrine books were
relegated to an appendix. Yet it was these, and especially the
Gospel, that were of prime interest to Biblical students. It
will be remembered {see p. ii, above) that certain anti-orthodox
critics had maintained that the Diatedsaron of Tatian, the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, and the Gospel of Peter, were all
one and the same work under different names. The recovery
of the Diatessaron confuted one part of this proposition; the
recovery of the Gospel of Peter confuted the rest. Unfortu-
nately the Gospel is not complete. The manuscript consists only
of extracts from the three works named, and each of them begins
and ends abruptly. The extract from the Gospel contains,
however, the most interesting part of it, the narrative of the
Crucifixion and Resurrection. In its main outlines it follows
the narrative of the canonical Gospels, but with variations in
detail. The chief blame is laid upon the Jews. It is Heroil,
not Pilate, who orders the Crucifixion. The thieves reproach the
Jews for their conduct to one who has done them no wrong.
The Jews refrain from breaking His legs, in order that He may
die in greater torment ; and they are abject in their entreaties to
Pilate to cause the Resurrection to be concealed. The narrative
of the Resurrection adds gratuitous marvels to the simple fact.
The soldiers and the Jews see three figures come out of the
tomb, of superhuman height, and the head of one reaches to
the heavens, and a cross follows behind him. The dependence
• ■•
vni APPENDIX.
of the Darrative on the canonical Gospels has been disputed by
a few strongly-biassed critics, but is not doubted bv sober
scholars of any school of opinion. The additions that are made
to them bear no marks of historical truth, but rather illustrate
the beginning of the tendency which led to the grotesque
apocryphal Gospels of later times. The date of its composition
cannot be precisely determined. The earliest record of it is to
the effect that Serapion, bishop of Antioch from a.d. 190 to 203,
found it in circulation in part of his diocese, and, after pro-
visionally sanctioning it, finally condemned it, on the ground
that, although most of its teaching was right, it was unsound
in some points, having been composed by heretics of the kind
known as Docetse, who denied the reality of our Lord's human
body. His words imply that it had been written a generation or
so before his own time, while its dependence on the canonical
Gospels brings it within the second century. It may therefore
be. placed between a.d. 120 and 160, and probably late in that
period rather than early. Plate XXVI. gives a slightly reduced
facsimile of the page containing the narrative of our Lord's death
and burial.
The fragment of the Hevelation of Peter contains a short vision
of the glories of Heaven, and a moixj detailed description of the
punishments of Hell. In character it is quite unlike the Revela-
tion of St. John, and is rather the prototype of those visions of
Heaven and Hell which were so popular in the Middle Ages,
culminating in the Divina Commedia of Dante.
The discoveries hitherto mentioned, with the important excep-
tion of the Diatessaron, have no direct bearing on textual
questions, and only an indirect one so far as
*• ^® ^^^ they throw light on the origin and date of the
' Synoptic Gospels — ^a problem which is closely
entwined with textual criticism in the strict sense of the term.
Those which remain to be mentioned are, however, primarily
and mainly textual in their character. The first of these is the
Sinaitic manuscript of the Old Syriac, which has already been
discussed at some length on pp. 154-156. Since those pages
were written, however, a strong plea has been put forward by
Mr. Burkitt, one of the original editors of the manuscript,
in favour of its orthodoxy on the subject of the Virgin Birth.
It is pointed out that (as has long been recognised) the gene-
M^og/ in St. Matthew is obviously not the record of an actual
PLATE XXVI.
f Peter -6tii Cent. (?).
APPENDIX, IX
line of descent, but rather of au official line of succession.
Thus Salathiel was not the son of Jecbonias, and the kings of
Judah from Solomon to Jecbonias, who figure in St. Matthew's
genealogy, were not ancestors of Joseph. Hence there is
no more reason for pressing the literal meaning of the word
"begat" in the statement of the relationship between Joseph
and our Lord, than there is elsewhere in the record. This
explanation accounts for the fact, noticed above, that in
other respects the language of the Sinaitic Syriac implies
the Virgin Birth, while the very fact of the ambiguity
of the phrase accounts for the alteration introduced into the
Curetonian copy. It does not necessarily follow that the Sinaitic
Syriac represents the original words of the Evangelist more
accurately than the Greek text ; but if the former can be relieved
from the charge of deliberate alteration of the text with a
polemical motive, the general character of its testimony will stand
higher. On this point there is nothing at present to add to what
has been said above ; but the whole question of the character of
the Old Syriac and Old Latin versions urgently needs examina-
tion. We have got as far back as is possible with the help of
the manuscripts of the original Greek, unless some copy much
earlier than any which we now possess should come to light. It
is only by means of the early versions that further progress can
be hoped for ; and the key to the problem lies in what are
known as the "Western" versions. Their remarkable diver-
gences from the ordinary texts have to be studied and accounted
for; what is authentic in them has to be separated from what
is due to carelessness or indifference as to the correct copying
of manuscripts in the early days of Christianity ; and if these
problems can be solved, we shall not be far from a comprehension
of the true form of the Gx>8pel text.
It cannot be said that much has been gained for textual
criticism from the one Greek manuscript of importance which
has come to lieht of late years ; but the discovery
7 The Coddx o j ^ j
* deserves mention at this point. In former lists
of the uncial manuscripts of the Gospels, the
letter N represented forty-five leaves of purple vellum, containing
scattered fragments from all four Gospels (especially Matthew
and Mark). Thirty-three of these leaves are in a monastery in
Fatmos, six in the Vatican, four in the British Museum, and two
APPENDIX.
at Vienna. In 1896, however, it was announced that a great
purple manuscript of the Gospels had come to light in the
neighbourhood of Caisarea, and that it had been acquired by the
Bu»sian Imperial Library. It was soon suspected, and sub-
sequently proved, that this manuscript was none other than that
from which the forty-live leaves of N were derived. It must
have been originally mutilated at least three centuries ago, for
the leaves in the British Museum belonged to the library of Sir
Bobert Cotton, which was formed in the reign of James i. ; and
the way in which the various portions have been scattered
indicates a willingness on the part of the owners to dispose of
small sections of the MS. to different purchasers. It is con-
sequently not surprising to find that even after the great discovery
of two years ago the manuscript is far from complete. Its exact
contents have not yet been published, but about half • of the four
Gospels is said to be preserved. In its original state the manu-
script must have been one of great beauty, written as it is in
large silver letters upon purple vellum. In date it is of the
sixth century, and its text (as was already known from the
previously extant fragments) is of the Syrian or '* received" type.
In this it agrees with the two other early purple manuscripts,
the Codex Kossanensis (2) and the Codex Beratinus (4>), of
which the former is assigned to the sixth century, the latter
(though perhaps with questionable justice) to the end of the
fifth. The publication of the newly-discovered manuscript has
been committed by the authorities at St. Petersburg to Mr.
H. S. Cronin, of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, whose edition may
be expected very shortly.
The same year, 1896, brought the news of a discovery relating
to the Old Testament, the first since the Tell el-A.marna tablets
(described on pp. 17-19), and far more directly
8 The Hezapla
* / connected with textual criticism. This was
xraffinoiit.
nothing less than a palimpsest fragment of a
portion of Origen's Hexapla. As has been said above (p. 55),
so cumbrous a work cannot have been much copied, and no
hopes were entertained of its recovery in its full form. It was
consequently the more surprising to hear that a young Italian
scholar, Dr. Mercati, had found a manuscript at Milan containing
some leaves of the Hexapla with all its Fix columns. The manu-
script is a palimpsest ($ee p. 138), the earlier writing (that of
APPENDIX. xr
the Hexapla) being of the 10th century, the later of the 13th or
14th. The six columns are not exactly those of Origen. The-
Hebrew is omitted, probably because the scribe was not ac-j
quainted with the language. The Hebrew in Greek letters
occupies the first column, Aquila the second, Symmachus the/
third, the Septuagint the fourth, and Theodotion the fifth ; while
the sixth contains not a continuous version but various isolated'
readings, the precise nature of which has not yet been ascertained.
The leaves thus fortunately discovered belong to the Psalter,
and the text of about eleven Psalms is said to be preserved. A
specimen has been printed from Ps. 46, but the complete text
has not yet been published. It is surprising to find that so'
cumbrous a work as the Hexapla was copied so late as the tenth
century, and the addition to our knowledge of the various versions
will be verv welcome.
The year 1896 was thus notable for the Biblical discoveries
made during its course, but 1897 has been still more so — ^at least
9 The Hebrew ^^ ^^^ chronology of discoveries is to be reckoned
text of Eccle- by the date of their announcement rather than by
siasticus. ^Yi2i,t of the moment in which the discoverer first
set eyes upon them. The first of these, and possibly the most
important, is the recovery of a large portion of the Hebrew
original of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Hitherto the main au-
thority for the text of this book has been the Greek version con-
tained in the Septuagint, with occasional help from the Syriac and
'Old Latin versions {see notes on pp. 75, 79) ; but in many places
it has been clear that the Greek translator has blundered, and
many efforts have been made to divine and reconstruct the original.
The Hebrew text was known to Jerome, and there is evidence
that it was still in existence early in ' the tenth century ; but
thenceforward, for a space of more than 950 years, no traces of
it could be met with down to the present day. In 1896, how--
ever, Mrs. Lewis, the fortunate discoverer of the Sinaitic Syriac
manuscript, brought back from the East a single leaf, which, on
being examined at Cambridge, was found to contain part of the
original Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus ; and almost simultaneously
Dr. Ad. Neubauer at Oxford, in examining a mass of fragments
sent to England by Prof. Sayce, discovered nine more leaves of the
same MS., following immediately after the Cambridge leaf. The
total amount of text thus recovered includes ch. 39. 15—49. 11 ;
3tii APPENDIX.
and the whole has been edited by Mr. Cowley and Dr. Neubauer,
of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.* The facsimile here given (by
the kind permission of the editors) represents the last page of the
manuscript, which is on paper, and written about the end of the
eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century.
The most striking feature about the discovery is the extent of
the divergence between the Hebrew and the Greek versions ; and
the character of the divergence shows that it is generally due to
the mistakes or omissions of the Greek translator. It is a most
instructive exercise to read the newly recovered original side by
side with the notes in the Variorum Apocrypha^ which indicate
the passages previously suspected of error in the Greek, the
variations found in the other versions, and the conjectures of
editors. Sometimes the suspicions of scholars are confirmed;
often it is seen that they could not go far enough, nor divine the
extent to which the Greek departed from the original. A small
instance may be given here, from Ecclus. 40. 18-20 :
OREEK TEANSLATION. HEBREW ORIGINAL.
(From thb Revised Vebsion of
1895.)
18 The life of one that laboureth, a life of wine and strong drink
and is contented, shall be made is sweet,
sweet ;
And he that findeth a treasure is But he that findeth a treasure is
above both. above them both.
19 Children and the building of a A child and a city establish a
city establish a man's name ; name.
But he that findeth wisdom is
above them both.
Offiipring (of cattle) and planting
make a name to flourish,
And a blameless wife is counted But a woman beloved is above
above both. them both.
20 Wine and music rejoice the heart ; Wine and strong drink cause the
heart to exult.
And the love of wisdom is above But the love of lovers is above
both. them both.
The divergences in verses 18 aud 20 are evidently due to a desire
to improve the sentiments of the original by removing the laudatory
* A very convenient small edition has lately been issued for those who are
not Hebrew scholars, giving a translation of the Hebrew side by side with the
Revised Version of the same portion of the book. A short introduction
supplies all the necessary information.
PLATE XXVII.
B'^'
^phitttc won foat
nit
Tfik LTkiude Hbbrrt
I
APPENDIX. xiii
mention of ** strong drink/* and the substitution of •* the love of
wisdom " for ** the love of lovers ; " while the omission in verse 19,
whether it be accidental or intentional, distorts the sense of the
passage. That the Hebrew text is the more authentic cannot be
questioned ; and this is but a sample of what is found throughout
the book. It is clear, both that the translator took considerable
libertv of paraphrase, and that he sometimes did not understand
the Hebrew before him. This latter fact might seem strange,
since we know (from the translator's preface) that the original
was probably written about 200-170 B.C., and the translation (by
the author's grandson) in B.C. 132, so that the interval of time be-
tween them was short; but it is accounted for both by the
fact that the translator was no scholar, and by the transition
through which the Hebrew language passed during this period.
Classical Hebrew, the language of nearly all the canonical books
of the Old Testament, was passing into modern or Eabbinical
Hebrew, a change quite sufficient to disconcert a moderate scholar.
The Eabbinical element appears already in the Book of Eccle-
siastes ; and hitherto it has been supposed that in Ecclesiasticus,
which is probably of somewhat later date, it would be more
strongly developed. The newly discovered manuscript, however,
shows that Jesus Ben-Sira wrote in pure classical Hebrew, equal
to that of the Psalms ; and no doubt it is partly to this cause that
the errors of the translator are due. The moral to be drawn from
this discovery is consequently one of caution in assuming that
variations (even considerable ones) in the Septuagint from the
Massoretic Hebrew necessarily imply a different original text.
They may do so, no doubt ; but we must be prepared to make
considerable allowances for liberty of paraphrase and for actual
mistakes, especially in the case of the books which are likely to
have been the latest to be translated. When the earliest parts of
the Septuagint were translated, a competent knowledge of classical
Hebrew must have been much commoner, and a higher standard
of accuracy, though not necessarily of literalness, may be expected.
The recovery of a substantial part of the Book of Ecclesiasticus
is the most important of recent discoveries bearing upon the Old
Testament text, but it is not the latest. Within
^^ f A ^^"^^^ the last twelve months a fragment of one of the
early versions has been brought to liglit, which
serves to supplement Mercati's discovery of a portion of the
xiv APPENDIX,
Ht'xapla. This latest acquisition grew directly out of that which
has just been described. The Cambridge Orientalist, Dr. Schechter,
who had first identified the leaf of the Ecclesiasticus fragment
brought home by Mrs. Lewis, was sent out to examine the
Gheniza (see p. 37) in Cairo, from which that fragment had come,
and succeeded in bringing home a considerable proportion of its
contents. The majority of these consisted of mutilated Hebrew
manuscripts, the examination of which- is still proceeding; but
some Greek fragments were found among them, including three
leaves which were identified by Mr. Burkitt as containing por-
tions of the version of Aquila (see p. 52). The manuscript is a
palimpsest, the upper writing being a Hebrew liturgical work
of the 11th century, while the lower is the version of Aquila in a
large uncial hand, which appears to be of the 6th century. The
passages thus preserved are 3 Blings 20. (21 in the Greek number-
ing) 7-17 and 4 Kings 23. 11-27. The fragment (which has
been edited by Mr. Burkitt) confirms what has previously been
known from other sources as to the extreme literalness of Aquila's
version ; and it indicates that, although Origen certainly used it in
his reconstruction of the Septuagint, he often did so with some
modification. One curious feature is that the Divine Name is
written in the old Hebrew characters, which for ordinary purposes
had gone out of use some 600 years before. This confirms an
express statement of Origen, which modern scholars had cause-
lessly dbubted. Another fragment, apparently from the same
manuscript, has been separately edited by Dr. C. Taylor. It
contains Ps. 91. 6**-13* and 92. 3^-9 (according to the numeration
in the English Bible).
One more discovery remains to be noticed in order to bring this
chronicle up to date. In the winter of 1896, the Egypt Explora-
tion Fund, which had previously confined its efforts
- Sayuigs j^i^Qg^ entirely to the monuments of ancient Egypt,
despatched an expedition, consisting of Mr. B. P.
Grenfell and Mr. A. S. Hunt, of Queen's College, Oxford, to
<lig for Greek papyri on the site of the ancient Oxyrhynchus.
Their efforts were rewarded by the discovery of huge masses of
papyri, numbering several thousands in all, some being perfect
rolls and others mere fragments. The total wealth of this
discovery is not yet fully known ; but among the literary frag-
ments are two of some importance to Biblical students. One is
jiPPENDJX. XV
a leaf from a small papyrus volume, containing the greater part
of tlie first chapter of St. Matthew, which, since it was evidently
written not later than the third century, is some hundred years
earlier than the oldest copy of the Greek New Testament hitherto
known. The text of this fragment has just been pub-
lished, and, so far as it goes, tends to support the Vatican and
Sinaitic manuscripts rather than the later authorities. The
other discovery, which was published last year, is a leaf
containing a collection of "logia," or sayings of our Lord,
three of which are substantially identical with some recorded in
the Gospels, while three are new, and two so much mutilated as
to be unintelligible. It is a discovery of exceptional interest,
though its value for scientific purposes has perhaps been exag-
gerated. From the textual point of view its importance lies in
the light (if any) which it throws upon the origin of the synoptic
Gospels and on the relation between their parallel texts ; and here
the extreme uncertainty which attaches to the character of our
fragment reduces its value very considerably. It is unques-
tionably of early date. The manuscript itself seems to belong
to the beginning of the third century, while the sayings which
it embodies are of a character which indicates a very early origin.
We know from St. Luke that records of our Lord's life existed
before his Gospel was written ; and it has been very commonly
held by modern scholars that among these early records was a
collection of Christ's sayings, from which the three synoptic
writers drew information. The discovery of such a collection of
sayings introduces therefore no fresh or unforeseen element into
the problem; and we have no means of knowing whether this
particular collection was made earlier or later than our Gospels.
Such indications as there are would seem to point to its being
later; for instance, the introductory formula, "Jesus saith,"
whereas the earliest collections, which were historical rather than
doctrinal, would naturally have " Jesus said " ; and in the case of
the canonical " sayings," the text of our fragment can hardly be
the common substratum of the various forms found in the
Gospels. It may, even, never have circulated at all, being merely
a compilation made by a private individual for his own personal
use. The question whether the new sayings recorded in it are
really sayings of our Lord is simply one which cannot be
answered. Many sayings of His there certainly were, which
XVI APPENDIX.
have found no place in the canonical Gospels, such as that which
is incidentally preserved in Acts 20, 35; but also there were
many sayings put into His mouth by later generations without
authority. One or two of the sayings in this fragmeitt, which
agree with the record of the Gospels, must be genuine; one at
least (" A city set upon a hill, and stablished, cannot fall nor be
hid "), which combines two canonical sayings of different purport,
can hardly be authentic as it stands. To which class the wholly
new sayings belong, who shall decide ? There is no test but
that of personal impressions as to suitability and probability,
and these, in such a matter, are a quite insufficient basis. What
we gain from this tantalising fragment is, rather than any positive
knowledge, a stimulus to thought and inquiry, and a concrete
example of what had hitherto existed only in imagination and
probable conjecture.
Such is the roll of discoveries (omitting those of minor im-
portance) to which recent years have given birth : a roll full of
interest, full of information, and full of encouragement for the
future. None of them affects the main lines of the history that
has been traced in this book, but they help to carry its researches
further and to fill up the details. Many problems still remain,
and much patient work is needed to remove the obscurity which
enwraps the beginnings of textual history; but the work is
being done in the right spirit, ready to learn from new facts,
yet testing all evidence before accepting it, and trusting con-
fidently that truth is best reached by fearless and honest inquiry,
and that the Truth shall make us free*
HEU MAJESTY'S PRINTERS'
SPECIAL EDITIONS OF THE HOLY BIBLE.
THE HEBREW MONARCHY : B CommentatB-
OUR BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
THE BIBLE AND THE MONUMENTS.
LEX MOSAICA ; OR, THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE HIGHER
CRITICISM.
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S LIBRARY.
THE STUDENT'S HANDBOOK TO THE PSALMS. Memorial EdiUon.
SPECIAL EDITIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
&c &c
EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE,
LONDON — GBE AT NEW STREET, FLEET STBEET, E.G.
EDINBUBGH, GLABGOW, HELBOUBNE, STDNET, AND NEW TOBE.
For an Illustrated Catalogue, or other Information,
apply to any Bookseller or to the Publishers,
Kmr.
CONTENTS.
j>
>»
■ tot
The Qtteen's Pbintebs' ^psciai iDMiion^ af ikt^ doiti
^iWe :—
The New Emerald Central Eeference Illustrated Teacher's
Bible ......
The New Illustrated Teacher's Bible
„ Aids to Bible Students
Illustrations ....
The "Egbert Eaikes" Sunday School Bible
The Teacher's Eoll of Bible Illustrations
The variorum Illustrated Teacher's Bible (Large Type
„ „ Eeference Bible (Large Type).
„ „ Eeference Apocrypha (Large Type) .
Description and Opinions of the Variorum and other Teachet^s
Bibles ......
The Hebrew Monarchy : a Commentary, with a Harmony of the
Parallel Texts ......
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (New Edition)
The Bible and the Monuments; ob. Primitive Hebrew Eecords
in the Light of Modern Eesearch .
Lex Mosaica ; or, The Old Testament and the Hig^her Criticism
The Queen's Printers' ^ibU ^inhBnt*» $ibvavtt
Vol. I. The Foundations of the Bible .
Vol. II. The Law in the Prophets
Vol. III. Principles op Biblical Criticism
Vol. rV. Sanctuary and Sacrifice .
Vol. V. Hezekiau and His Age
Vol. VI. Abraham and His Age {Illustrated)
Vol. Vn. The Book of Daniel {Illustrated)
Vol. Vin. The Age of the Maccabees
The Student's Handbook to the Psalms (Second Edition, with
Memoir of the Author) .......
The Queen's Printers' ^ptciai <DMi{an« of t^rc ^ook of
(fiovxvxoxx ^tray^tr: —
The Annexed Book of 1662 in Type {with Appendices)
The Historical Prayer Book ....
Barry's Teacher's Prayer Book {with Glossary) .
Barry's Psalter with Commentary (Large Type)
The " E. F. G." Dictionaries
YAeB
5
6
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
22
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
39
40
40
A 2
§p«cial ^ttblicaUons.
EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE'S
Central Reference Bible.
An Entirely New Edition, Printed from New Plates.
Includes all the 1611 references.
Size, 7i X 5j X -^ inches. Specimen of Type.
Dcmd's cha/rge to Solomon, 1 CHRONICLES, 23. The mimber of the Levites.
house ounto the name of the Lord my
God:
8 But the word of the Lord came to me,
saying, ^Thou hast shed blood abundant-
ly, and hast made great wars : thou shalt
not build an house unto my name, because
thou hast shed much blood upon the earth
in my sight.
9 Behold, a son shall be bom to thee,
who shall be a man of rest; and I will
give him •'rest from all his enemies round
about: for his name shall be || Solomon,
and I will give peace and quietness unto
Israel in his days.
10 ^He shall build an house for my name ;
B.C. 1017.
aDeat.12.5.
ft 1 Kin. 5. 3.
ch. 28. 3.
HOT,
to oversM.
cDeut.16.18.
dSeeiCbt,
29. 25, 26.
Amos 6. 5.
« I Kin. 4. 25.
&5.4.
/Ex. 6.16.
Nam.26.57.
ch. 6.l,&c.
2Cbr.8.14.
their number by their polls, man by man,
was thirty and eight thousand.
4 Of wluch, twenty and four thousand
were || to set forward the work of the
house of the Lord ; and six thousand toere
<: officers and judges :
5 Moreover four thousand were porters;
and four thousand praised the Lord with
the instruments «which I made, said
Davidj to praise therewith.
6 And /David divided them into t courses
among the sons of Levi, namely ^ Gershon,
Kohath, and MerarL
7 H Of the ^Gershonites loere, ilLaadan,
and Shimei.
Pbicbs — See page 13.
EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE'S
Central Reference Illustrated Teacher's Bible.
Printed from new type, 1286 pages, including all the 1611
ReferenceSf and with revised aids and
One Hundred and Seventy-Five Half-Tone Illustrations Printed in Sepia.
Size, 7^ X oj X 1^ inches.
Prices — See page 13.
COMPLETE TEACHER'S EDITION.
EYBE $■ 8P0TTI8W00DK
6 Special ^nhlicaiions.
i
The EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE
TEACHER'5 BIBLE.
Pnblished, 1875. Enlarged, 1877. Varioram Editions 1880 and 1890.
Extended, 1893. Revised and Illustrated, 1897.
EDITED, WITH
iUTOTTPES OF ANTIQUITIES AND PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS,
SELECTED AKD DESCBIBED, BY THE
Chaplain to the Honourahle Society of Lincoln^s Inn ; Member of Council of the
Society of Biblical ArchtBology, d;c. d;c. ; Author cf A Commentary on the
Books of Chronicles ; The Inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar the Great ;
The Yariorum Apocrypha, &c. &c.
ALSO WITH
PHOTOGRiPHIG REPRODUCTIONS OF MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS
SELECTED AKD DESCRIBED BY
Of the Manuscript Department qf the British Museum; Author of Our Bible and
the Ancient Manuscripts.
FIFTEEN EDITIONS. Prices from 2s. 6d. to £2 2s.
{Illustrated Catalogue, or other Information ^ from any Bookseller or the PMishers.)
In this series of Editions of the Authorised Version — several
of them page for page — are combined —
I.— The Queen's Printers' ^ef evince ^ VARIORUM |^«fer«ni?« ^ibU^fr*
n.— The Queen's Printers' " AIDS to tir« ^tu^ent of tir« Sol© ^U»A«/*
m.— The Queen's Printers' "MONUMENTAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES."
Academy.— ** The Queen's Pi'inters have gone the right way to produce a valuable
book. They have selected for treatment important subjects, and then entrusted them
to the hancui of always trustworthy, and sometimes eminent specialists. Thus we have
admirable papers.'*
The Christian.—" The Bible student cannot afford to be indifferent to the advan-
tage of having the aids to which he commits himself written by scholars eminent in
their various departments. The 'Aids to the Student/ published by Messrs. Eyre &
Spottiswoode, Her Majesty's Printers, are beyond comparison more trustworthy and
more complete than any otner similar book."
EYBE ^ 8P0TTI8W00DE,
Special ^VLhticalxons.
** Magnificent collection of plhtes^^Guardian.
'* Nothing could be hetter.**— Church Times.
THE
New Instrated Aids to Bible Stadents.
WITH COLOURED FROHTISPIECE, "A ROYAL HIHITE."
The Second Part of the Queen's Printers' Teacher's Bibles.
Separate Issues, I^rices from Is. to 128. 6cl.
THE Queen's Printers were the First to Issue what was known as tJie Sunday
School Teacher^ 8 Bible in May, 1875. It was not until 16 months apteswabds
that a Bible issued from the Oxford University Press, bearing on its title page
"The S. S. Teacher's Edition," and closely following the model of the Queen's
Printers' Teacher's Bible; this brief statement is necessary to remove misunder-
standings.
The '*9tti0 to tte SSible iStti^mt," which are approaching their 2drd year of pub-
lication, were prepared by the most eminent specialists, and have been from time
to time enlai^ed and broiight up to date with the utmost care, in order that every
intelligent reader of the Bible might have at his disposal the Best and Surest in-
formation from, the pen of the most Eminent Authority on each of the principal
subjects.
The resulting compendium of Biblical information has throughout been admitted
to be not only the largest and fullest work of the kind, but also the best. The most
competent judges have drawn attention to the compass and thoroughness of tiie
"Aids" — none of which are anonymous— and to the eminence and authority of
the contributors.
The Publication of the Queen's Printers' VARIORUM Bible, and of the Revised
Version which followed it. called popular attention to the sources from which we Imve
received the Sacred Text, and the quotations in the VARIORUM Notes of Manuscripts,
Versions, Ancient Fathers, etc., aroused a spirit of enquiry as to their relative im-
portance. To meet this, the Bev. Professor Swete wrote for these AIDS a new
Article entitled.
The Bible : its History* which has now (1897) been supplemented by Dr. Kenyon,
of the Manuscript Department of the British Museum, who has selected and
described specimens of MSS. and Versions (reproduced in fckoaimile) to
illustrate the Transmission of the Text.
The following are the
ADDITIONS TO THE 1897 EDITION.
A Comprelieiisiye Series of ninstrations {umoards cfVJO Plates, comprising more
than 200 sidtjects), selected and described oy Bev. C. J. BALL, M.A.
References in the New Testament to Fassaees in the Apocrypha and other
Jewish Writings, by Rev. (f. J. BALL, M.A.
The Period between the Testaments, a comprehensive article by
Rev. G. H. BOX, MJk.
A Ck>mbined Index to the Proper Names, Places, and Subjects of the Bible,
by r y y Revi C. HOLE. M.A.
OBEAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G.
8 Special '^ublicaiions.
NEW ILLUSTRATED MDS—confmued.
Some of the Contributors to the AIDS:
Rby. professor SWETE, D.D.. Begins Prcfetaor qf Divinity, Cambridge.
Rev. professor SAYCB. M.A., LL.D., Profeeeor qf Aseyriology, Oatford.
Rbv. professor W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Dean Ireland'e Prqfeseor of
Hxegeeis, Oaford,
Rev. professor STANLEY LEATHES. D.D., Prqfeeeor qf Hebrew, King's
College^ London, d^c.
Rev. C. H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., Examiner in Hebrew, Universities of Oaford,
Durham, and London.
Rev. professor CHE YNB, D.D., Oriel Prqfessor qf Interpretation, Oxford ;
Canon qf Rochester.
Db. F. G. KENYON, qf tfie MS8. Department, British Museum, late FeUow Of
Magdalen CoUege, Oxford.
Rev. canon TRISTRAM, D.D., LL.D., F.R.8., Durham.
Rev. S. G. GREEN, D.D., Co-Editor qf the Revised English Bible.
Rev. C. hole, mA., Professor qf EcclesiastiecU History at King's College,
London,
PROFESSOR N. STORY MASKELYNE, M.A., F.R.S.. Prqfessor of Mineralogy
in the University of Oaford ; Hon. Fellow qf Wadham College, Oxford.
Sib J. STAINER,M.A.,Mu8.Doc.,Prt2/'«Moro/ifii«tc in the University ofOatford.
F. W MADDEN, M.R.A.S., Author qf ** History qf Jewish Coinage,** dtc.
W. St. chad BOSCAWEN. Esq., Fellow of the Royal Historical Society;
Member qfthe Society qf Biblical Archaology.
Rev. G. H. BOX, M.A., Hebrew Master at Merchant Taylors* School.
Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A., Cfumlain to the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn;
Member qf Council qfthe Society qf Biblical Archaology ; Editor qf the
rariorum Apocrypha, <Sbc , d;c.
i&c. <&c. d;c.
SEPARATE ISSUES. NEW ILLUSTRATED ADS.
WITH COLOURED FRONTISPIECE, "A ROYAL HIHITL'
II
PEARL 24mo. RUBY 16mo. MINION 8vo.
Size, 5|x4x|in. Size, 6| x 4| x | in. Size, 71 x Six fin.
8. d. 8. d. s. d.
Cloth, red edges . . . . 10 (net) . . 16 . . 2 6
French Morocco, red edges 16 . . 2 3 . . 3 0
Paste Grain Morocco, gilt edges 19 . . SO . . 4 0
Turkey Morocco, gilt edges 4 0 . . 5 0 . . 6 6
THE YARIORuT(Large Type) AIDS
'Witli Special Q-lossary.
Bourgeois 8yo., uniform with the Yariomm Bible and Apocrypha.
s. d.
Cloth, bevelled boards, red edges 5 0
Paste Grain Roan, gilt edges 8 3
Morocco, gilt edges, gold roll inside cover 12 6
ETBE ^ SPOTTISWOODE,
k
Special ^nhlxcalions. 9
■ . .
80m:b oi>iisrioN8
OP
THE QUEEN'S PRINTERS' NEW ILLUSTRATED TEACHER'S BIBLE.
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Exeter : — " Beautifully executed."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Bath and "Wells: —
*' Confers a great benefit upon all engaged in teaching the Holy Scriptures."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Gloucester : — " A good guide."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Worcester: —
" A great improvement on all previous editions."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Chichester : — *' A handsome volume."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Truro : — " Much pleased with it.'*
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Lichfield: —
" A mine of information indispensable to students."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Manchester: — *' Very interesting."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of St. Asaph : — '* Most instructive."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Chester: — '* Very valuable."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Killalob: —
** A wonderfully extensive compilation."
The Eight Eev. Bishop of Carmarthen: —
" A reliable handbook of Biblical Archaeology, with its splendid series of
monumental illustrations, is a most opportune contribution to the study of
Holy Writ."
The Very Eev. Dean op Carlisle: —
** The new matter which has been added is most interesting, and has been
wonderfully well selected."
The Vert Eev. Dean op Durham: —
" A lovely book. Will be of great service for our Divinity students."
The Very Eev. Dean op Gloucester: —
" A marvellous book. . Shall be glad to see it in the hands of foes as well
as friends of the Book of Books. Such a treasury of Biblical lore has never
been dreamed of before. As instructive as it is intensely interesting."
Dean op Worcester : — " Should be in the hands of every diligent student."
Dean op Eochester : — " Most comprehensive."
Dean op Wells : — " Excellent in design and execution."
Dean op St. Paul's: —
" Invaluable. The names of the writers are a guarantee of accuracy."
Dean of Chichester : — ** Of great use."
Dr. Fritz Hommel, Professor of Semitic Languages in the University
of Munich ; Author of " The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as Illus-
trated by the Monuments" : — "Mr. Ball's book deserves the palm.
>t
OBEAT NEW 8TBEET, LONDON, E.G.
10 Special ^uMicafions.
THE NEW ILLUSTRATED TEACHER'S BIBLE OF THE QUEEN'S PRINTERS.
**A FIRST HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL ARCHAOLOGT.**
"The higli merits and nsefulness of the Qneen*s Printers* Aids to the Bible
Sttbdent are so well known that farther recommendation from us might seem almost
superflnous. We cannot, however, let the occasion of the issue of a new illustrated
edition pass without taking the opportunity of calling attention to the great and in-
creasing value of this work. This edition, which may be had either separately or
appended to the 'Variorum Teacher's Bible/ has been enlarged by the impoitant
addition of a comprehensive series of archeeological illustrations, selected by the well-
known Biblical scholar and Orientalist, the Rev. 0. J. Ball, M.A., beautifully repro-
duced for the most part from photographs, and explained by concise yet comprehensive
descriptions. A work like this sup^es a long-felt want. While we have had of recent
^ears many excellent and learned works on archeeology, still the science is yet in its
infancy, and consequently the average Bible student has become somewhat lost among
so much raw material still unclassified. In this new section of the ** Aids,*' however,
containing as it does a representative selection of existing data, groux)ed in masterly
fashion, prefaced by a concise yet lucid Introduction, and followed by brief, yet clear,
descriptions, we have a veritable and complete, and also a firsts handbook of Biblical
Archaeology. The average student can find no easier or more satisfactory means of
, obtaining a good general idea as to what has been done by archseologic^ research
to illustrate and to corroborate the Bible story than by a perusal of these intensely
interesting pages.
" We echo the editor's wish when he says : —
** * It is hoped that the use of it may at least convince the general reader that
the sacred history no longer hangs like a picture in the air, without visible back-
ground or solid terrestrial surroundings ; but is seen more and more to occupy a
real and intelligible place in the laj*ger story of the nations, and is graduBilly
falling into true perspective as a part^unquestionably the most significant and
essential part — of the vast panorama of the fortunes of mankind.*
'* That archaeology has been a triumphant witness to the genuineness of Bible
history, is now a matter of common-place.
" * Never again will scornful incredulity dare to assert, with Voltaire, that those
Scriptures were an idle fabrication of mediseval monks. The Old Testament
records no longer stand alone, supported only by a few doubtful references in the
classics, and by the uncritical narrative of Josephus. Large portions of the
sacred history can now be brought, and have been already brought, to the test of
strictly contemporary evidence. It has, in fact, been proved abundantly by the
ever-accumulating collateral testimonies of the Assyrian^ Babylonian, and Egyp-
tian remains, that the Old Testament contains substantially true extracts h-om
the annals of the IsraeUtish kingdoms.'
" Too much praise cannot be bestowed upon the illustrations given in this section.
The subjects, which have been carefully chosen, are illustrated by more than 170 photo-
graphic reproductions, fully one-third of which appears for the first time in a^ work
of this popular kind. The subjects are arranged both chronologically and topically.
They^ are arranged as far as possible in the order of the canonical books, aaid there are
running heads at the top of each page to inc^cate the Scriptural connection. They
are also arranged to illustrate the following topics : First, the history of the origin
and development of the written characters by which the Bible has been preserved
and transmitted ; secondly, the transmission of the text in manuscripts, versions, and
translations, down to the age of printing; and lastly, illustrations of the religious
phraseology, traditions, ideas, and practices of Ancient Israel and contemporary nations,
and of the course of Old Testament history as illustrated from the monuments oi
Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and those of the Hittites and Phoenicians.
" We have only to add, with respect to this important enlargement, that the editor
has had the comjwtent assistance of Dr. Gr. F. Kenyon, of the Manuscript Department
of the British Museum, in respect of the second part. We may add, too, that one of
the most interesting of the illustrations is a facsimile of ' A Boyal Hittite,* reproduced
in colour from an Egyptian portrait-tile of the time of Rameses III." — The Sunday
School Chronicle, June 30, 1898.
EYEE ^ 8P0TTI8W00DE,
§pccxal ^nhlications. ii
NEW ILLUSTRATED
TEACHER'5 BIBLE
^ #V^x / vr VXX^ V^ ^ ^V^ \> \> V ^x
SOME orasrioNS.
The Academy.—" The names of the Eev. C. J. Ball, as editor, and of
Profs. Sayce and Swete among the collaborators, are a gaarantee that the
work is trustworthy."
The Church Times.—" It is diflficnlt to see what room is left for anything
better in form or material. We congratulate the publishers upon their sump-
tuous product."
The Gliardian. — "It has a magnificent collection of plates, and is far
superior to all previous editions."
The Chnrchman. — ** The amount of valuable matter gathered into a small
space by the admirable printing and the strong thin paper is extraordinary."
The Speaker. — " The illustrations are of extreme significance, as well as
of great historical interest. A veritable armoury of incontrovertible facts."
The Morning Post.— "The best of its kind. The work teems with
information."
The Home Magazine.— " The best for general utility, get-up, and
completeness."
The Record. — " Should help teachers to describe with increased vivid-
ness and fidelity the persons and places illustrated."
The Daily Graphic.—" An excellent help to the study of the Holy Scrip-
tures. In the choice of illustrations, advantage has been taken of tiie most
recent researches and explorations."
The Daily News. — " A greatlv improved edition of these widely known
* Teacher s Bibles.' "
The Expository Times.—" This new edition is a model for other Teacher's
Bibles to follow. The illustrations are artistic, the choice and description of
them thoroughly scientific. It is the best Teacher's Bible in the market."
The Methodist Times.-" The best that has been issued. Will do more
to convince scholars than many earnest words."
The Scotsman. — " The book, so happily illustrated, cannot but maintain
its foremost position."
The Irish Times. — " It is a triumph of modem research and arrangement,
and we anticipate for it a world-wide circulation."
The Christian.— "A most valuable book."
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G.
12 Special "Sfublications.
Latest Addition to the Queen's Printers' Teacher^ s Bible,
ILLUSTRATIONS,
Monumental, of Manuscripts and Versions, and of
Biblical Sites and Cities,
SELECTED AKD DESCBIBED BY THE
Chaplain to the Hon. Society oj Lincoln* 8 Inn ; Member of Council of the Society qf
Biblical ArcTueology ; Editor of the Variorum Apocrypha^ &c. &c.
Hittite .
11
Persian .
7
Greek
16
Latin
10
Views of Sites, &c. .
26
THIS systematic and comprehensive Selection of more than 200 Subjects,
reproduced by Photographic Process in upwards of 170 Plates, is offered
to the general reader as a " Handbook to the Science of Biblical Archaeology,"
as well as an Aid to the intelligent reading of the Bible.
I.— The Series is divided thus:—
Part 1.— The History of Writing, or. The Origin and Development of the Written
Characters by means of which the Holy Scriptures have been Preserved and
Transmitted to Modem Times. {Plates i.-x.)
Part 2.— The Transmission of the Text in Manuscripts, Versions, and Tinnslations.
{Plates XI.-XXIV.)
Part 3.— Illustrations of the Religious Phraseology, Traditions, Ideas, aod Practices
of Contemporary Nations and of Ancient Israel ; of the Contemporary Knowledge
of the Arts of Life; and of the Course of History as recorded in the Old Testament
from the Monuments of Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and from those of the
Hittites and Phoenicians: to which are added Autotype Representations of
Important Sites, Cities, and Personages mentioned m the Old and New
Testaments. {Plates xxv.-bnd.)
II.— The following is an Analysis of the Subjects :—
Babylonian ... 40
Egyptian .... 44
Assyrian .... 41
Phoenicio - Hebrew and ") g
Hebrew . . . .}
III. — The Selection has the following Special Features:—
1. The Subjects have been carefully selected from the entire area of available material.
2. Autotype reproductions have been preferred to drawings of the originals, but the
Drawings included have all been made specially for this Work. The whole is
executed in sepia.
3. Running heads at the top of each page indicate the Scriptural connection, and the
Subjects are arranged chronoiogically, i,e. in the order of the Canonical Books.
4. Of the Monumental Subjects more than a third appear for the first time in such a
Publication ; the selection includes the most recent discoveries, e.g., Thb Gospel
OF St. Peteb, and a few Subjects hitherto unpublished.
5. Complete Series are given of (i.) The Cherubic Figrures of Babylonia and Assyria;
iii.) The Races of the Bible; (iii.) Of the Hittite Remains; (iv.) Of theliion
lunts of Assyrian and Persian Kmgs ; (v.) The Monumental Names of Baby-
lonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian Kings, named or alluded to in Scripture ;
(vi.) The known Portraits and Busts of Kings and Emperors.
6. Subjects are, as a rule, reproduced complete and not in part ; some are illustrated by
the addition of a second, or even of a third, specimen ; in the case of the Moving
of Colossi and of Sieges of Cities the Assyrian and Egyptian representations are
g'ven for comparison,
are much used to illustrate Archaic Religion and Mythology.
8. Translations, original or revised, are given ; (i) Complete, of the shorter Inscriptions
which appear in the Plates, and (ii) In Pabt, as specimens of the longer, e^,
of The JDehige Tablet containing the Chaldean History of the Flood (translated
in full in the Vabiobum Edition).
JSYEE ^ 8P0TTISW00DE,
§pedal "STublications.
13
cc
rw^
♦»
SUNDAY SCHOOL BIBLE
Has been prepared to meet the very ^neral demand for a Bible possessing the
essetUicU features of a Teacher's Bible, yet less bulky as to size and matter.
Especially recommended for the use of
Sunday School Scholars
AND
Bible and Sunday School Workers.
It contains the Authorized Text with B«ferences (including all the References
of the 1611 edition), together with concise explanations on —
The Bible: Its History.
1. Titles.
2. Orlffinal Languages.
3. Dmslons.
4. The Canon (Old and New Testaments).
5. Transmission of the Orisinal Texts.
6. Yecslons: Ancient— Moaem.
7. Biblical Interpretation: Jewish — Chris-
tian.
- 8. Reyelation and Inspiration.
Hex. H. B. Swetb, D.D.,
Bsgius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge.
The Bible: Its Contents.
Introduction : the Bible, Its Main Outlines.
Summary and Analysis of each Book.
Old Testament.
Kev. Stanley Leathes, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew in King's Coll..,Limd.,3fe.
Revised and Expanded by
Ret. R. B. Gikdlestone, M.A.,
Hon. Canon o/ Christ Church, Oasford.
Apocrypha.
Rev. C. H. H. Wright, D.D., M.A., Ph.D.,
Examiner in Hebrew for the Universities of
Oxford and London.
New Testament.
Rev. W. Sandat, M.A., D.D., LL.D.,
Dean Trend's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
Plants of the Bible:
Sib J. D. HooKEa,K.C.S.I.,C.B., F.R.S.,and
Rev. Canon Tristram, D.D., LL.D., F.R.8.
A Criticism of Identifications In the Rerlsed
Version.
Rev. Canon Tristram, D.D., LL.D., F.R.S.
The Animal Creation in the Bible:
1. Mammalia of the Bible.
2. Birds of the Bible.
Animal Creation— conf.
3. Reptiles of Scripture.
4. Fishes and Invertebrate Animals.
A Criticism of Identifications in the Revised
Version.
Rev. Canon Tristram, D.D.,LL.D., F.R.S.
Money and Weights of the Bible:
F. W. Madden, M.R.A.S.,
Author of " History of Jewish Coinage," Sfc.
Measures of the Bible:
Rev. C. Hole, M.A.,
LKturer on Ecclesiastical History, King's Col-
lege, London; Co.-Editor of ^'Smith's Dic-
tionary Of Christian Biography."
Glossary of Bible Words:
The late Rev. J. R. Lumby, D.D.,
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cantbridge.
A Table to find eaoh Psalm by its First
liine.
A Combined Index to the Proper Names,
Places, and Subjects of the Bible.
Rev. C. Hole, M.A.
Concordance of Bible Words with their
context (above 40,000 references).
Twenty-eierht Autotjrpe Plates of Monu-
mental Illustrations of the Holy
Scriptures.
With Photographs of Antiquities, Important
Biblical Sites and Cities, and Eao-slmiles of
Manuscripts and Versions.
Selected by Rev. C. J. Ball, M.A.
Copyright Maps :
Corrected to the latest Surveys, by H. Courtier,
F.R.O.S. Indexed on a new plan, and In-
cluding places mentioned in the Apocrypha.
Price List of Emerald 8yo. Reference Bible, << Robert Raikes," and << Complete
Teacher's Bible. Emerald type, 8yo., 1061 pages;
size 7i X 5^ X 1 inch. With complete References.
»»
Ftanch Morocco, limp, round comers, red under gilt edge
French Morocco, fiexlble divinity circuit, round comers, red under
gold edge
The same, cloth lined
Fkrnich Morocco, flexible divinity circuit, lined to edge with grained
^leather, round comers, red under gold edge
Persian Morocco, flexible divinity circuit, lined to edge with grained
leather, round comers, red under gold edge
Best Levant, flexible dlvlnltv circuit, silk sewn, kid lined to edge of
cover, round comers, red under gold edge (a very superior book,
the leather and workmanship are of the best quality)
Without
" Aids."
s.
d.
4
0
4
6
4
9
6
0
8
3
-
Robert
Ralkes.
8.
5
5
5
7
9
d.
0
6
8
Complete
Teacher's
Edition.
5. d.
6 Oj
6
6
8 0
10 3
17 0
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G.
k
14 Special 'Jfxxhlxcatxon^.
<*WiU waken the dullest girl, and settle the most restless boy into instant
and lively interest."— Tlie Expository Times,
THE
TEACHER'S Roll
OF
Bible Illustrations
CONSISTING OV
PROM Eyeb & Spottiswoodb's
XEIACMEIR'S BIBl^El.
Arranged on Sixteen Sheets. Size 17^ by 221 inciies.
/vyv/v/NyNy^^v/x/x/ v/v/\/ v/%y */\/ %/v/v/»/*/*y%x
Separately Issued and Mounted on Roller - - -
... With accompanying Pamphlet of Descriptions.
Price 3s* 6cl., complete.
Also Mounted on Linen, with Roller,
/\ ^x /\/ \/ vx/V/X^V/V/X/NyV^V/X/X/^-ZNy^/v/V/vyV/A/ V/\/A/\y\.
These Illustrations, arranged clironologically, exhibit the main results of
Modern Research in Biblical Archaeology, and throw a welcome light on the
Sacred Records. An Enlarged Edition of the Table which traces the
Phoenicio-Hebrew Alphabet to the Archaic Babylonian script rather than to
the Egyptian hieratic occupies the first page. Adapted for use in class.
Selected and Described by the
JEle^r. C. J. BAIjIj, IM.A.,
Member of the Council of the Society of Biblical Archaology, &c.t &c.;
Author of The Inscriptions ofNebiAchadnezzar; The Variorum Apocrypha, &c., &c.
The IIlustratlonE — A.utotypes of Aiitlc[uities, Manuscripts, and of Important
Biblical Sites and Cltiei— have been produce! in Elyre and Spottiswoode's
"Woodbury" "Works.
" The pictures are always adequately ana interestingly described." — 2%« Scotsman,
" lucludes the most recent discoveries. It is a triumph of modem research."— 2%6
Irish Times.
"The pictures teach better than many earnest words."— 2%tf Methodist Times.
" It is a happy idea to reprint, in sheets on a roller, the dia^^ms and |)ictures
belonj?ing to the well-known and justly praised Queen's Printers* Teacher's Bible." —
SundaySchool Chronicle.
MYBE §- SP0TTI8W00BE,
§pccxai publications.
15
THE BIBLE READER'S VADE MECUM.
THE VARIORUM TEACHER'S BIBLE.
LARGE TYPE VARIORUM BIBLE AND AIDS.
WITH THE
Bourgeois Svo, (Bible and Aids, 1894 pages, Size, 9f x 6| x 1| iTicJies.)
This novel and comprehensive Edition of the Authorised Version — ^the climax
towards which the Queen's Printers have consistently developed their Series of
Teacher's Bibles for nearly 23 years (1876-1898)— combines—
L— The VARIORUM ia«f«tr«nce ^iW«. (See p. 16.)
With ^ppcvvipl^ci* (276 pages.) See p, 17.
II.— The "AIDS fp tlj« ^tttl>«nt 0f tlj« «0ltt ^iW«/* {Seepp. 7. 8.)
III.— ILLUSTRATIONS-MONUMENTAL, OF MANUSCRIPTS &
VERSIONS, AND OF BIBLICAL SITES. (Seep. 12.)
The most competent judges have drawn attention to the compass and
thoroughness of the *' Aids " (none of which are anonymous), and of the
Illustrations ; as well as to the eminence and authority of the contributors.
Special Subjects.
HISTORY OF BIBLE.
MUSIC.
POETBT.
MONET,
ETHNOLOGY.
BIBLE & MONUMENTS.
Authors.
SWETE.
BALL. LEATHES.*
BOSCAWEN. LUMBY.*
CHEYNE.* MADDEN.
DRIVER.* MASKELYNE.
GIRDLESTONE. MAYHEW.
GREEN. SANDAY.
HOLE. STAINER.
HOOKER. TRISTRAM.
KENYON. WRIGHT.
SAYCE.*
Special Subjects
PLANTS.
METALS, &c,
ANIMAL CREATION.
PROPER NAMES, dkc.
CHRONOLOGY.
HISTORICAL EPITOME.
* Members of Old Testament BeTlsion Committee.
Pbices, Finest India Paper, from 27s. to 52s. 9d. ; with Apocbyfha,6s. 9d. additional.
Thin White Paper, in variooi leather bindings, from 24s. to 47s. 3d.
SCHOLASTIC EDITION, bound in cloth, IBs. 9d. ;
with Apocrypha, 48. 6d. additional.
SCHOOL EDITION (without Apocbypha or Illustrations).
Nonpareil Svo. (Size, 7} x 6^ x 1^ inches.) 1260 pages.
Prices (Finest India Paper or Thin White Paper), from 78. 6d. to 388. 6d.
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G.
10 Special "gfublicattons.
TEE lEW BIBLE FOR PREICHERS, TEACHERS, i STDDEim.
Large TpVAlMJM^^ BMe,
(Sige, 9| X 6i X li inches, 1308 pages,)
TVITH APOCRYPHA.
{Size, 9f X 6{ X If inches, 276 pages,)
For the TEACHER'S EDITION see page 15.
The VARIORUM Edition of the Authorised Version has a great and
independent value, whether for daily use or as a standard work of Eeference.
It meets the wants of every grade of student, from the intelligent reader to
the learned reviser.
In style and appearance the VARIORUM Kefbbencb Biblb was assimilated
to the familiar 8vo. Eeference Bible to make its utility no less universal. But
it is distinguished from all other Eeference Bibles by the addition, on the same
page gg the Text, in Foot-notes, of a complete digest of the chief Various
Eenderings and Keadings of the original text from the very best Authorities.
The sources from which the Annotations are taken comprise, in the
OLD TESTAMEirr. APOCBTPHA. NEW TESTAMENT.
90 Commentators, ^q Commentators ^® Commentators,
M Versions, including * Commentators. « Ancient Versions
^^ ^ . , _ . 20 Versions, 2S Ancient Manuscripts,
the Revised Version. ^ Critical Editions of the Text,
A*D ^" AKD
R.y. Mai^nal Readings. 15 Manuscripts. Revised Version & Margin.
The VARIORUM Notes, therefore, lay open to the ordinary reader of
Scripture stores of information hitherto confined to great scholars or to the
owners of very costly Libraries, and comprise the quintessence of Biblical
Scholarship in the most convenient fornu
The Commentary here is strictly textual (with Brief Explanatory Notes) ;
nnd the names of the Editors— Professors CHEYNE, DKIVEE, SANDAY,
the late Eev. P. L. CLAEKE, and the Eev. C. J. BALL — are sufficient
guarantees for its accuracy and completeness.
The numerotts Commendations of the completed Work include .—
The Rev. Dr. Wace, late Principal of King* s College, London :—
'* It is a work of incalculable usefulness, for which the warmest gratitude is due aUke
to the editors and yourselves."
The Rev. Canon W. J. Enoz Little :—
'* It is a beautiful and valuable work. I think it the most satisfactory copy I have
ever had. I like it more, the more I make use of it.'*
EYEE If SPOTTISWOODE,
i
Sptcial If ubiicaftons.
THE YARIORnM APOCRYPHA:
Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.,
X*mbtr <tfa* OmtuM 1^ at Boctttt qf BlbUcal Arehaolon. *e.,^he.
Large Type. Bourgeola 8vo. Superflne Paper. 276 Pages.
Cloth, Bevelled Boards, Red Edges, 6/6.
(Jfov al$B bt lad <« leather BindlHgi-)
COMMB NT ATOK ■.
U. Anuld, St. Atiianastus, G. Badvelt (in "CriCici Saori"), Prot. K L. Benalj.
Dr. E. C. BissEdl, Br. J. F. BOtlchBr, Dr. C. Q. BrataohneiilBr. Rev. W. R. Chiirton,
8t. Clement of AleiaDdria, St. Cvrillus of Alfijandria, Hat. W. J. Deano, Dr. T. A.
Dereser.Dr. W. M. L. DeWetle, DraaiuH (in "Critioi SBori"). Dr. Alfred Bdershelm,
Dr. J. G. Eiohhorn, Buaebiug, Dr. HeMirich Bwnld, Vary Bev. Dr. ' w i^>~*- n- n.
F. PrltlBOhe. Pnf. J. M. Puller. Dc. J. P. Gaab, Dr, Abnlmro Oeii
Ten. Dr. E, a. QifTord, Dr. H. Grttij, Dr. C. ' •" -^ "-—
~ "■"), Dr. C. Gutbeclat, Dr. M. Qui
P. HitaiB, Dr. J. H. Holtzmann. Paator J. J. Kneucker, Dr. J. O. Li
" ■"-' — °"-' " " Manimliouth, D- " " " "- — "— ■^
. Rflnaeli, Prof,
Pcof. D. B^ManiMliouth, Dr._F.J
'olknmr, Dr. C. A. Wahl, Dr. B-'Wulte.'
VUBSIONB.
Aldlue Bdit. ot Greek Bible (Sept.), Arabic Version. Armenian Yersioii. Conipla-
tensiao Edit of Greek Bible (Sept.), The Apostolical Conatitationa, Coptic Temon.
Bthiopio Version, ffalkm's two Hebrew Versions of Tobit, Iiaia or Old Latin Version,
Old Latin Version, Septuaf^lnt Version. Bymmaahus, Svriao Version, Heiaplar Syrian,
Valton's Sjriao Text. Walton's two Sfriao Versions of Suaanna. TheodotloD, Vallate.
MANDBGRIPTB.
IS, Codei Sinaiticus, Uncial H88.. Cursive MSB. oollsted by
'— "—andrinuB, Cndci VHtTn»nii». Amienji MR., (aintaininir
ToL L of the Cuneiform Insoriptions
SOME OPINIONS.
Academj.— " Excellently adapted to its purpose ; there does s
tary opon tbe Apocrypha which is at onoe 80 concise and helpful."
Atueasenm. — "A difflcuLt task satistactorily accomplished, it 1
. . ^1 ^^ write on Apooirpha literature."
rday Haview,— " The books of the Apocrypha, oontainiDB aa they do mnoh
literature, should have the long standing neglect they have suffered removed.
eiist a commen-
gnttt help
tolhoaewl
Satnida; Bevlew,
splendid literature, '
by suoh an edition.'
Chnieh Qaarterly Beriew.— "One of the greatest difflcultiea in dealing villi the
Apostypha Ooiuists in tEn endeavours to restore the lost ori^nal t«it of books vhlch,
*" '*■ ' ' -DO eiistod in the Hebrew tongue. In his prefaoe Mr. Ball point*
1 ....;._., q[ gimiEir Hebrew letters have made sheer
well-known Variorum Reference Bible."
(hwrdlui.— " Hr. Ball has worked through a lafge number of suthorities-^forl?'
jiae i he haa not however conflned himself to quoting their opinions, but has added
throughout many suggestions of his own. botli critical and eiplanatoi7.
""The information which he has given is Judiciously seleoted, and tbe advance
marked by his work, on previous works upon the Apocrypha, is exceedingly great."
Eeconmended alto by tJi€
Bacord, Eipository TlmcB, Chnreli fleriew, literftr; Torld, fee, be.
GREAT NEW STREET. LONDON, E.O.
18 Special "Sfubltcaiions.
ADVANTAGES OF the VARIORUM
Above every other Bible.
For the Variorum TEACHER'S Bible, see page 15.
1. " It is the only edition of the English Bible in which the details of textual criticism
are made accessible to the ordinary reader " (Dr, Kewyon ; see p. 24), —including
the evidence for and against the Revised Version.
2. THE GEKE&AL SEADEB unacquainted with the original languages, Hebrew
and Greek, is enabled to arrive at a truer, fuller, and deeper meaning of
Scripture than he could obtain from any other published work. The
VARIORUM foot-notes correct, explain, unfold, and paraphrase the text ; in-
deed, the alternative versions of obscure or difficult words and phrases often
render further note or comment needless.
3. THE SUEDAT SCHOOL TEACHES will find the use of the VARIORUM foot-
notes of the utmost value to him in the preparation of his lessons. And,
whilst teaching, a glance at the foot of the page will enable him to give the
beet alternative reading or translation of the original t«xt, or to explain
phrases or special words in the A.T.
Bby. Db. PABKEB eaye that it ie quite cte valuable for precufhere an4
hearers as for teachers and scholars. It is a library in itself, containing
everything that is immediately needed for the ehicidation qf the sacred text.
4. THE MODEBH PBEACHEB finds every passage ear-marked of which the text
or the translation is considered by scholars defective, and in the corresponding
foot-notes he finds the evidence, for and against alterations, judiciously digested
from the most authoritative Versions and Editions, including the readings and
renderings adopted in the Revised Version and its mai^in. This discrimination
of sources and of authorities saves him infinite time and labour. Where all
scholars agree upon a rendering the names of authorities are omitted.
Thb late archbishop OF CANTEBBUBY said: **It is so us^l
that no apology is, I am sure, needed for commending it,**
5. THE PROFESSIONAL STUDENT of the original texts will find in this con-
spectus a more careful selection of critical data, especially as regards the
Old Testament and authorities, than is elsewhere accessible. He will have
at hand the very essence of textual criticism, extracted from the most reliable
sources, ancient and modem.
Db. WESTCOTT (Lobd Bishop of Dubham) says : " I constantly use the
Old Testament, and find it a great help to have at hand a britf and trust-
worthy summary of facts and results. Nothing could be better done than
the Psalms" He also informed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Conference at Lambeth that he considered that this VARIORUM Edition of
the Authorised Version " was much the best edition qf the kind"
ETEE ^ 8P0TTI8W00BE,
i
§pedat. "publications. 19
VARIORUM aid otter TEACHER'S BIBLES.
OPINION'S Oin THK Cr^KRO-Y.
The latb Abchbishof op Gantebbury (Db. Bekson) :—
" The Archbishop said, at a Diocesan Conference :— " I should like to call the atten-
tion of the Convocation to the New Edition of the 'Variorum Reference Bible,*
published by Messrs. £yre and Spottiswoode. I will just read an account of what
it contains. The whole book has been revised. It was laid, I may say, before the
Lambeth Conference— the promise of it— and now- it is finished. The old edition
forms the basis of the new edition : it is printed in larger type; and every passage
which has been disputed by great scholars as to its correct translation or rendering,
is marked by a figure before and after the sentence or word, these figures referring
to the foot-notes, which give the alternative renderings or readings, together with the
authorities for the same, abbreviated to save space. The collection of these notes
from 69 commentators for the Old Testament, and 73 for the New, has occupied
many years close study and preparation. The New Edition is much amplified as com-
pared with the old one, and you may like to know that the opinion of Dr. Westcott
IS that it is much the best edition of the kind that has appeared."
The late Abchbishof op Yobk (Db. Thomson) :—
"The names of the authors guarantee its excellence. A miniature library of
illustrative matter. If such a book is carefully and generally used, there must
be a great improvement in Sible knowledge in this generation. The critical mattw
at the foot of the columns is romarkably complete. The last feature gives it special
value**
The late Abchbishof of Abmagh:—
"I have carefully examined the 'Variorum Teacher's Bible' published by Messrs.
Eyre and Spottiswoode. The varied and valuable amount of information it contains
is most remarkable. There are few subjects connected with the Bible left un-
elucidated. The Student of the Bible will find the Variorum Edition a treasury replete
with instruction."
The Bishof op Dubham (Db. Westcott) :—
" Admirably done. I constantly use it."
The Bishop of Limebicz:—
'• The Variorum (Teacher's) Bible, with its References, Concordance, Various Read-
ings and Renderings, and supplemented by its Aids to Students, serves as a Biblir^ii
Encyclopsedia, useful by its compactness and the value of its contents, to Biblical
Students of all grades.'*^
The Bis&of of Exeteb (Db. Biceebsteth) :—
"I am much gratified with it . . . eminently fitted for teachers, and all who
desire in a clear and compendious form very full information respecting the sacred
Scriptures.
"A most valuable work, and will greatly enrich the library of Biblical Students."
The Bishof of Llandaff:—
"An immense amount of information, a great help to Teachers, and to Bible
readers generally.
"The names guarantee the value of the information. I trust it will be lai^ly
circulated."
The late Bishof of St. David's (Db. W. Basil Jones) :—
" I have delayed . . . until I could find more time to look into the volume ; it
contains so large an amount and variety of matter in a very small space. But its
contents appear to me of the highest value and admirable in arrangement. I would
refer especially to the various Readings and Renderings in the foot-notes."
QEEAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G.
B 2
% $t>edal ^Mications.
Thb Bishop op Gloucbstbb akd> Bristol:—
" A very valuable work» well suited for those for whom it is designed, and for all
earnest students."
Thb Bishop op Litbbpool:—
**! admire it yery much, and think it a most valuable edition of the Holy
Sbriptnres. I shall be glad to recommend your work." —
Thb LA.TB Bishop op Wuebpibld (Db. Walshah How) :—
" I have carefully examined the (Tariorum) Teacher's Bible published by Messrs.
Eyre and Spottiswoode, and I consider it a most valuable work. Believing that the
Bible is its own best interpreter, I am sure that the Aids to an intelligent under-
standing of the text itself, together with the assistance given to students who desire to
have an accurate conception of the purest form of that text, will prove of inestimable
service to all Bible readers."
The Bishop op Dowb awd CoinroB:—
"I consider the Tariorum Teacher's Bible highly useful both to Teachers and
Students. Tlie various readings in the foot-notes laisel^ increase its usefulness,
placing before the professional Student an amount ot information and research
which to many would otherwise be inaccessible."
Thb Bishop op Gobk:—
"The eminent names of those who have contributed i^rticles to the Teacher's
Aids are a guarantee for the accuracy of the information, which will be found most
valuable to those who wish to understand or teach, or first to understand and then to
teach, and help to provide that skilled and accurate teaching, which is not only the
true antidote to prevalent unbelief, but the great preventive of it."
The late Bishop op Killaloe (Db. Fitzgebald) :—
"I find it to be a most perfect compendium of information on almost every
Biblical matter that could be comprised within such a compass, and it seems
marvellous how much has been introduced and how varied the topics. It will, I
am sure, prove a most important aid to Glei^symen, Sunday School Teachers, and
many others, and I hope to avail myself of it yet in that direction."
The Bishop op Tuam:—
" I admire greatly the most valuable contents."
The late Bishop op Eilmobe (Db. Dabley) :—
" I have looked through it carefully ... a most valuable edition of the sacred
Scriptures. The Variorum foot-notes represent much critical research, very carefully
arranged ; the Aids to Bible Students contain a mass of interesting information in a
convenient form ; useful alike to Teachers and Students."
The Bishop op Ossobt:—
*' I feel pleasure in bearing my testimony.
''An invaluable aid both to Clergymen and Teachers, and a marvel of cheapness.
The more I have examined it, the more thoroughly have I been satisfied and
pleased."
The Bight Rev. Bishop Babby :—
'* For the study of the Text is invaluable."
The Dean op Samsbuey:—
**I am fully sensible of the great boon you have put within the reach of
Bible students and it will be my endeavour to promote the knowledge of this
valuable edition."
The Dean op Ely:—
** I hope to make use of it, with its various adjuncts of Notes, Readings," &c., &c
The Dean op Lincoln:—
"The work will be extremely useful."
The Dean op Rochester (late Master cfBalliol College, Oxf(yrd) :—
" A great achievement of toil and thought."
EYEE 8f 8P0TTI8W00BE,
I
Special ^nhlxcallons. 21
" TttB (latS) Dbjls ov St. VavX^b (DA. CflxriCii):— ^ P
"A wonderful digest of learning. The names of the various scholars are* of
course, wiirrant of care and accuracy, and certainly nothing so complete and com-
prehensive, in such a compass, has ever before been attempted."
TiiB Dean op Pbtbrboeouoh:—
"Tour Bible strikes me as admirable in every respect. The Various Benderings
considerably enhance the value of the work. It will give me very great pleasure to
do all in my power to promote the circulation. I know of no one volume to be
compared to it for the amount of information it conveys."
The Dean op Norwich (Dr. W. Lefroy, D.D.) :—
" There is no work of the kind comparable to this work. It is invaluable."
The late Vert Rev. Dr. Vauohaw, Dean of Llandaff, and Master cf
the Temple:—
"I use the Variorum Teacher's Bible with pleasure and profit."
The Dean of Lichfield:—
"I am both surprised and delighted at the fulness and accuracy of information
to be found in it.
" I will gladly mention it with the approbation which it so well deserves."
The Vert Eev. Dr. Butler, Master of Trinity College. Cambridge:— .
*'A great achievement."
The Vert Rev. Dean Farrar:—
" It lies always on my desk. I place a high value upon it."
The late Ven. Archdeacon Hesset:—
"Students of the sacred volume will owe a deep debt to the projectors and
producers."
The Rev. Canon Bodt:—
" Very well done."
The Rev. Canon Knox Little:—
" Most useful and helpful."
The Rev. Dr. Wace, late Principal of King*s College .—
' A work of incalculable usefulness."
The late Rev. Dr. Edbrshbim:—
" It is certainly the best, most complete and useful which has hitherto appeared."
The Rev. Dr. Samuel G. Green:—
"As a companion to the Revised Version it is invaluable."
Dr. Salmond, qf Free College. Aberdeen .—
" I trust it may secure a very wide circulation. The former edition has come to
be a familiar book among our students."
The Rev. Hug^h Price Hughes :—
"Incomparable and invaluable."
Dr. Greenwood, Victoria University {Owens College), Manchester :''
"Its merits and remarkable features are already known to me."
The Rev. Joseph Parker, D.D.:—
"I have examined your Bible with great care. It is quite as valuable for
praachers and hearers as for Teachers and scholars.
" It is almost a library in itself, containing everything that is immediately needed
for the elucidation of the sacred text."
The Bishop of Ontario:— '
"My opinion of it is nothing so good haa hitherto appeared. It is admirably
adapted ior its purpose of assistinsr Teachers, and cannot fail to be appreciated by
all who are really anxious to find the best instruction in the sa(»«d volume."
The Rev. J. H. Vincent, qf CliaiUauqua :—
" The book is indeed a marvel, a library of ieaminji;, a book of books, concerning
the ' Book of Books,' and deserves a wide circulation m Europe and America."
QBEAT NEW STBMET, LONDON, E.G.
2*2 Special publications.
THE HEBREW MONARCHY:
a Commentary?,
CONTAINING
A HARMONY OF THE PARALLEL TEXTS
AND
EXTRACTS FROM THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS.
EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
R. PAYNE SMITH, D.D., late DEAN OF CANTERBURY,
BY
TVinifyColIfg-e, Cambridge; Rector o/ Great Ponton^ Lines,; Diocesan Inspector o/SckooU.
Small 4to., Cloth, Qilt Edges (8 jo pp. and Maps), ax/-
Extracts from JDr. Payne Smithes Introduction.
'* rPHE object of this important Commentary is unique. It is to exhibit the
JL History of the Hebrew Monarchy in a connected narrative, with every-
thing necessary for its elucidation. Thus it commences with the agitation of
the Israelites for a more permanent form of government ; and ends with those
S>rtions of the prophetic books which throw light upon the purpose of the
ebrew Monarchy, the reasons of its fiEill, and its survival in that which was
ever the true reason of its existence — ^the spiritual reign of David's Son. . . ."
<* These extracts show what was the ultimate purpose of Ctod in establishing
monarchy in Israel, and under the veil of an earthly kingdom they reveal to us
the nature of the true kingdom of G-od. . . "
** We can understand Jewish history only by seeing it in relation to Christ,
and as we look back upon the strange course it has run we see in His coming
its reason and explanation. And as these were given beforehand in the
writings of the goodly fellowship of Judah's prophets, both the histoiy and
these writings gain in clearness by being brought close together."
SOIMS OPINIONS.
The Scotsman.—" It makes what are merely dry bones in ordinary oommentaries
live before us."
The GuardiaUt 17th December 1886.— "It is convenient to the student to have the
parallel historical texts before him. . . . Much industry and scholarship have been
expended upon it."
The Morning Post* 22nd Januaiy 1897.— "It is a book for all churches. ... It is
remarkable for its excellence from several points of view, but more espedaUy from an
evidential standpoint. . . . The statements of the text are amply illustiated by parallri
or significant passages."
The Literary World, 29th Januarv 1897.— "Certain to run into more than one
edition. We need not emphasize its helpfulness."
EYEE ^ 8P0TTI8W00BE,
Special publications. 28
HEBREW MOUARCHY-coniinue^,
The Schoolmaster, 9th January 1897.— "It is a monument (Ht patient, thoughtful,
and thorougb work."
The Irish Times, 17th December 1897.— "The volume is one which every Bible
student will treasure. The harmony of the parallel texts is of the highest value. The
typography is excellent, and the correctness of tbe notes is wonderful."
The Daily News.— "A unique Commentary. Its originality consists first in the
weaving together of the different histories, such 93 those in the Books of Kin^and
the Books of Chronicles, into a single narrative ; and secondly, in the introduction of
the Psalms and passages from the Prophets, at the point in the history to which they
refer. For preachers, the reading of the Psalms and Prophets into the narrative gives
the volume real value as an aid to exposition."
The Glasgow Herald.— "The c<mious notes are mainly enlanatoiy, though brief
homiletical reflections are added. The geographical aud archsological information
seems to be particularly full and up-to-date. Mr. Wood does not bother himself about
the Higher Criticism, but takes the Bible story as he finds it."
The Becord.— "The design of this work is hiarhly to be commended. The whole
Commentory is one ]Rrhicb clergymen or theological students or educated rmders of the
Bible generally, who may be aebarred from the use of a -full theol(^cal library of
reference, will find admirably suited to their needs."
The Expository Times.—" The notes are surprisingly numerous ; they are skilfully
chosen and tersely eiroressed. Further, their range of material is wide, all the things
we usually find in a Dictionary of the Bible bein^ gathered into the service, with not a
few we should not expect to find there. The mdexes are excellent. The author is
evidently fit for his work. He is conservative in criticism, but he is a scholar. He has
read the commentaries on his books, and he has read his books themselves."
Belfast Evening Telesrraph.— "The work is all that scholarship and careful pre-
paration could make it, and higher praise could not be given. A word of credit must
also be accorded the general get-up of the volume. It is a beautiful specimen of both
the printer's and the binder's arts."
The late Bight Hon. W. E. Gladstone.— " I am delighted with the 'Hebrew
Monarchy.* "
Rev. P. J. Chavasse, Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.— "It supplies a distinct
need, and is likely to prove of real service to the clergy and to Bible students generally."
The Yen. Archdeacon of Sheffield.— "Deeply interesting; it is what I have long
wanted, and will be an immense help."
The Archbishop of York (Dr. Maclagan).— "Very useful . . . covers ground
not yet occupied."
The Archbishop of Armagh.— "A work which commended itself in its inception
and idea to the two spirits, so noble and so diverse, mentioned in the Dedication, must
be a blessing to many."
The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Westcott).— " A very solid and valuable help to the
study of the history of Israel, admirable in plan and execution."
The Bishop of Lincoln.—" One effect of modem criticism has been to lead men to
excuse themselves from studying the Bible. Many of the modem books seem to miss
the real spirit of the Book. I am so glad you have brought out the historical value of
the Prophets."
Canon Crowfoot (Principal of Lincoln Theological College).— "It will be con-
stantly in my hands. It is unique in its plan, and that plan is most admirable."
Canon Blacldey.- "A work of vast labour and care."
The Bev. Dr. Plnmmer.— " Welcome and useful. An immense amount of informa-
tion in a very handsome volume."
The Bey. Dr. Sinker (Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge).— ''Having
regard to the type of readers for whom it is primarily intended it is admirably done;
The idea is a very good one and weU worked out, the work is thorough and exact, and
the matter is pleasantly and interestingly put."
Principal of St. Aidan's College, Birkenhead.— "Admirable in arrangement and
plan."
GEEAT NEW 8TEEJST, LONDON, E.G.
24 Special ^publications.
THIItD EDITION, BEVISED AND ENLABQED.
Our Bible and the Ancient Hannscripts :
BBIKG A
HISTORY OF THE TEXT AND ITS TRANSLATIONS.
BY
FREDERIC G. KENYON, M.A., D.LiTT.,
H<m, PhJ>, qf Halle UnUtersUy; Late Fellow qf Magdalen College, Oxford,
ILLUSTRATED WITH 29 FACSIMILES.
Demy Syo. Dark Bluis Oloth. Bed Edges. Price ft/-
^^\y\y « 0\ **v*.
With an Appendix on recent Biblical Discoveries.
Three Plates (making 29) have been added*
EXTRACT PROM THE PREFACE-
THE present yolume deals solely with tlie transmission of the sacred text.
My object has been to condense within the limits of a moderate yolnme
the principal results at which our specialists have arrived, so as to furnish the
reader who is not himself a specialist with a concise histoiy of the Bible text,
from the time at which the several books were written until their appearance
in our English Bibles to-day.
This volume is especially intended for those who study the Bible in English,
and in referring to details of textual criticism I have consequently had in my
mind the only edition of the English Bible in which these details are made
accessible to the ordinary reader, namely the VARIORUM Bible published by
Messrs. Eyre & Spottiswoode. I hope, however, that it may also be found
useful by students who are beginning to make acquaintance with the textual
criticism of the Septuagint or New Testament in their original language, and
who use such editions as the Cambridge Septuagint edited by Prof. Swete, or
the Oxford Greek Testament edited by Prof. Sanday.
With regard to the facsimiles of manuscripts, I have in every case stated
the original size of the page reproduced, and (in cases where the whole page
cannot be given) of the part reproduced; and it is open to anyone to counter-
act the reduction by the use of a magnifying glass. I have tried to give pages
which especially illustrate the characteristics and peculiarities of the manu-
seript in question, the errors of the scribes, or some important detail of textual
criticism. F. Q-. K.
Dbpabtmbnt op Manuscripts, Bbitish Musbum.
. EYEE $- 8P0TTI8W00DJS,
$pccial "^ttblicatiotts.
2^
OUR BIBLE AND THE AltClKNT MkHJJBCBl^TB— continued.
SOME OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
The Times.— "An account at once lucid,«cholarly» and popular in the best sense.
The plan is au ^cellent one, and is very skilfully executed.'
The Daily Chronicle.—*' Br. Kenron is specially qualified to deal with the textual
or external historr of the Bible, and in this beautifully printed volume tells the
story with scholarly conciseness and power.*'
Church Times.— "Mr. Kenyon's book deserves nothing but praise/'
The Academy.— "We shall be surprised if the whole mass of Bible-readers be not
ffratetld to Mr. Kenyon for his timely and valuable help. The plates by which he
illustrates his subjects are very clear and beautiful bits of reproduction."
The Guardian.— "Dr. Kenyon has produced a book of which theological students
stood sorely in need ; full of interest and free from exaggerations, the book is dominated
by common sense."
The Speaker*— "An able epitome, and the fact that it is based to a large extent on the
works of such authorities as IhEividson, Driver, iScrivener, Hort,Skeat,ana Westcott adds
to its value as a record which is thoroughly abreast with contemporary scholarship."
The Tablet.— "Mr. Kenyon's volume deserves to find a place in every college
library."
Western Morning News.— " £vei;y cleivyman should not only have it on his
shelves, but be frequent in recommending it.'^
The Manchester Guardian.-" There is probably no book published at anything
like the same price from which the studoLt can obtain the same amount of thoroughly
trustworthy information."
Interesting Notices have also a/ppeared in the
Daily News, Church Standard, Sunday School Chronicle, Christian, Christian
World, Oxford Jonmal, Irish Times, Scotsman, &c., &c.
f \j v./'\yx/v/x/x/
Xi5t ot 5llugtraiion5»
THE SAMARITAN PENTA-
TEUCH-ROLL AT NABLOUS.
CLAY TABLET FROM TELL EL-
AMARNA.
HEBREW SYNAGOGUE - ROLL
(Brit. Mus. Harl. 7619).
THE MOABITE STONE.
HEBREW MS. (Brit. Mus. Or. 4446).
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH
Rome,(Barberini Library, 106).
CODEX SARRAVIANUS.
CODEX MARCHALIANUS.
PESHITTO SYRIAC MS. (Brit. Mus.
Add. 14426).
CODEX SINAITICUS.
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS.
CODEX VATICAN US.
CODEX EPHRAEMI.
CODEX BEZAE.
CODEX CLAROMONTANUS.
CURSIVE GREEK MS. (Evan. 348).
CURETONIAN MS. OF OLD SY-
RIAC (Brit. Mus. Add. 14451).
BOHAIRIC MS. (Brit.Mus. Or. 1315).
SAHIDIC MS. (Brit. Mus. Or. 4717
(10) ).
CODEX VERCELLENSIS (Old
Latin).
CODEX AMIATINUS (Vulgate).
THE LINDISFARNE GOSPELS.
ALCUIN'S VULGATE (Brit. Mus.
Add. 10546).
MAZARIN BIBLE.
ENGLISH GOSPELS OF THE 10th
CENTURY (Brit. Mus. Reg. 1 A
XIV.)
WYCLIFF£*S BIBLE (Bodleian MS.
957).
TYNDALE»S NEW TESTAMENT.
THE GOSPEL OF PETER.
THE UNIQUE HEBREW MS. OF
ECCLESIA8TICUS.
QB,BAT NEW STBEET, LONDON, E.G.
26 Special "Sfublications.
THIRD XDinON.
THE BIBLE AND THE HONDMENTS.
The Primitive Hebrew Records in the
Light of Modern Research.
By W. ST. CHAD BOSCAWEN,
FMow of the Eoyal Hittorieal Soetetjf, Member offha Society qfBiblieal JrtSuBohfn,
WITH 21 PHOTOaRAPmQTnJiUSTRATIONS.
Demy 8yo., Bound Cloth Boards. Price S/-
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS,
All of which, with the ezoeption of those marked (*), have been repro-
duced from Photographs taken by Messrs. EYRE ft SPOTTISWOODE
from the originals.
HANEH WEIGHT.
MACE HEAD OF SABGON I. (B.C.
3800).
TABLET OF ASSUBNAZIBPAL I.
(B.C. 1800).
INDIA HOUSE INSGBIFTION OF
NEBUGHADNEZZAB n. (B.C. 606).
FIBBT CBEATION TABLET (COPIED
ABOUT 660).
BOUNDARY STONE OF NEBUCHAD-
NEZZAR I. (B.C. 1120).
TABLET FROM THE TEMPLE OF
THE SUNGOD AT SIPPARA (B.C.
900).
TEL EIrAMARNA TABLET (B.C. 1450).
EAGLE-HEADED FIGURE.
ASSYRIAN TABLET OF THE FALL.
MERODACH AND THE DRAGON.
SEAL OF TEMPTATION.
* RUINS OF TELLO.
* HARPER AND CHOIR (B.C. 3000).
BRONZE FIGURES (B.C. 2800) AND
FIRE-GOD (B.C. 722).
* STATUE OF GUDEA (B.C. 2800).
DELUGE TABLET (PORTION OF
THE ELEVENTH TABLET).
DELUGE TABLET, No. 2.
SEAL REPRESENTING THE CHAL-
DEAN NOAH.
WINGED HUMAN-HEADED LION.
JACKAL-HEADED GOD.
^
Some Opinions.
The Times.— *' An able attempt to brinff the Primitive Hebrew Records into rela-
tion with the Babylonian and Assyrian versions of the same traditions."
Oliserver.— " The book is beautifully illustrated.**
Church Quarterly Review.— "A more interesting and lucid account of ancient
inscriptions we have never read, and Mr. Bosoawen has transmuted his learning into
popular forms of speech with conspicuous success."
Churchman.— " Mr. Boscawen has rendered important service in the sphere of
Biblical criticism in the publication of his important volume."
Literary World.— "This contribution to an intelhgent appreciation of the Old
Testament will be welcomed not least by those who still preserve their reverence for it
intact."
The Christian—" A work of great usefulness.'* (So Tiie Daily Chronicle.)
Western Morning News.—" The book will really supply a need."
BYEE 8f 8P0TTI8W00DE,
Special ^nhtxcations. 27
LEX M08AICA;
Or, THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE HIGHER CSITICI8M.
SDITBD BT TEE
Rev. RICHARD YALPT FRENCH, D.C.L., LL.D., F.S.A.,
WITH AH nrTBODUCTIOir BT THB LATE
RIGHT REVEREND LORD ARTHUR C. HERVEY, D.D.,
Sishop qfSath and Wells,
(Sssags bg l^arions Wtitttn an t^e J^ab of ^oses nnb t^t ^ts^er Cntictam.
Rev. A. H. Satcb, D.D., LL.D. I The late Bev. J. Shabfb, D.D.
Bey. GBOBaB BAWLiirsoir, M.A. Bev. Alexaitdbb Stbwast, LL.D.,
Bev. GBORaB C. M. Douglas, D.D. I F.A.S.
Bev. R. B. GiBDLESTOifE, M.A. | Bev. Staitlet Leathes, D.D.
Bev. BiCHABD Yalft Fbebch, D.C.L. ' Bev. Bobebt Sinkeb, D.D.
Bev. J. J. Lias, M.A. Bev. F. E. Spekceb, M.A.
Bev. F. Watson, D.D. Bev. Bobebt Watts, D.D., LL.D.
WITH A SUMMABY BY THB
Bev. HENBY WAGE, D.D., late Principal of King's College, London.
Royal 8vo., Half-bound Vellum Cloth, Red Burnished Edges, IS/-
SOME OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
The Times.— "'Lex Mosaica' is a sustained and reasoned criticism of the Higher
Criticism conducted by a variety of competent hands."
Church Times.— "The deliverance of fourteen able men speaking at their best."
Becord.— ** We fully believe that this book will be of great use in this time of unrest."
(Jhnrchman.— '* This important work is a thorough exposition of the crude and
arbitrary guesses of the theoretical school of criticism, and contains a powerful
defence of the traditional view."
Tablet. — "An important contribution to the literature of the subject."
Expository Times. — "The most serious effort that has yet been made to stem the
advancing tide of Old Testament criticism."
Church Family ITewspaper. — " The volume is one of great interest, which must
command the earnest attention both of Biblical Students and critics."
Sunday School Chronicle.—" We very gladly welcome this book. It presents a
mass of clear and precise information of priceless value to the Bible students."
The Methodist Times.— "The writers of 'Lex Mosaica' deserve the grateful
thanks of all who believe in the Old Testament as a revelation of God, given through
men who were guided in all their work by the operation of the Divine Spirit."
Oxford Journal.— "No student of the Old Testament time should omit to read
these Essays."
' Cambridge Chronicle.— "'Lex Mosaica' is one of the most elaborate expositions
of the histmcal part of the Bible that has ever been produeed.*^
Irish Times.- "The volume of the year.
**
QBEAT NEW 8TBEET, LONDON, E.G.
2S . Special "Sf ubncdifoidfs.
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S LIBMY.
t T
Demy 8vo. Dark Blue Clotli, Red lEjdgres.
Volumes I -VIII. Others in preparation.
THIS Series of Volumes, popular in style and moderate in
size and price, is designed to meet the needs of the ordinary
Bible Student, a large and increasing class of practical students
of the Bible, as well as the requirements of more advanced scholars.
Much light has been throw^i in the course of the present century
on almost all branches of Biblical Inquiry, and it is very desirable
that such results as are surely ascertained should be placed within
the reach of all in a systematic manner. Difficulties will always
remain, owing to the extreme antiquity of the Sacred Books, and
to the peculiar nature of their contents. On these questions
experts must be heard upon both sides, but. the multitude which
is so deeply interested in the results has neither the time nor the
training for battling over technical details.
Accordingly, the preparation of these volumes is entrusted, to
men who have patiently considered the drift of modern inquiry so
far as it concerns their own special branches of study, and who are
not lightly moved from their carefully formed convictions.
Their aim is to set forth as clearly and accurately as possible
the literary position of the Books of the Old and Kew Testa-
ments and their contents in relation to Theological, Historical, and
Scientific questions.
The series is mainly constructive and positive in tone, and will
tend to check that bewilderment as to the very foundations of
sacred truth which, if allowed to spread, will seriously affect the
work of the Sunday School Teacher, the Bible Class Leader, the
Home and Foreign Missionary, and the devotional student of
Scripture.
EYEE ^ SPOTTISWQODE,
. jj- .
Spe!^£tL 7i|bfic^^f pn$., 89
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S LIBRARY.
FOURTH EDITION, REVISED.
Volume I.— Price 8s. 6d.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE BIBLE :
STUDIES IN OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM.
BY
R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A.,
Hon, Canon qf Christ Church; late Principal qf Wycliffe HaU, Ostford,
SOIVEB OPINIONS.
*»
Onardian.— " "Written in a reverent spirit;
Theological MontUv.— " Any one who takes up the book will be led, we think»
to peruse and ponder till he arrives at a sound conclusion on what is, and must
remain, one of tne most important matters within human ken."
Church Review.—** An invaluable work,"
Bock.—'* Canon Girdlestone as an expert gives us the results of his own personal
research. We are taken into the very workshop and shown the methods and processes."
Churchman.—'* It is worthy to become a tezt«book in a theological assembly."
Christian.—** Will assist many to gain a firm foothold with regard to the verity of
Holy Writ."
Literary Churchman.— ** This is a book of exceeding breadth of learning, and
quite exceptional value. We desire to give an unusually emphatic recommendation to
this v^nable treatise."
literary Opinion.—*' The style throughout is clear elevated, and forcible."
Globe.—** A mine of strength to the holders of the ancient faith."
Quiver .—'* We can heartily commend it."
Baptist.—** Canon Girdlestone's arguments will command general respect.'*
ITational Church.—*' Precisely the kind of work wanted in these critical times."
Evening ITews.- *' A perfect armoury of aigument and scholarship."
Yorkshire Post.—** Shows results as interesting as they are valuable."
Church Bells.—'* The various topics involved are put in a very interesting way."
British Weekly.—** It has a calm and dignified style— with a splendid courtesy to
opponents, and altogether it is a pleasant book to read."
QB^^AT N£JW 8TBEET, LONDON, E.G.
30 Special "gfubUcations.
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S UBRfiiRY—con/mtud.
SECOND EDITION.
Voluine II.— Price 8s. 6d.
THE LAI IN THE PROPHETS.
BT THB
REV. STANLEY LEATHES, D.D.,
Prqfessor of Hebrew, King's College, London; Prebendary cf St. PauFs;
Author qf ** The Structure qf the Old Testament ** ;
The Religion qf the Christ*' {Banvpton Lecture) ; ** Christ and the Bible," Ae„ Ae,
EXTBACT FROM THE PREFACE.
The late Dr. Liddon wrote : " How I wish you could see your
way to writing a book on, say, * The Law and the Prophets,'
putting the Law back into the chronological and authoritative
place from which the new criticism would depose it, and so
incidentally reasserting in the main, and with the necessary
" reservations, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch."
This book is partly the result of that suggestion.
803ME OPINIONS.
Church Quarterly Eeview.—" A careful work."
Guardian.— ** Deserves wide circulation It was an excellent idea thus to collect
these allusions."
Church Times.—'* Most valuable."
Spectator. — ^"Proves the antiquity of the Mosaic Law, by the references that are
made to it in the books of the Ftopnets, books that are conceded on all huids to have
at least a considerable relative antiquity. The contention of the extremists, that the
whole 1^1 ritual is post-exilian, certainly lays itself open to hostile criticism. The
appeal oi the Prophets to the Hebrew people seems founded on the fact that there
was a covenant which the people had broken.*'
Church Beview. — " If Dr. Stanley Leathes had never done any other good thing
than he has done in writing this most valuable book, he would be fairly entitled to
rank as one of the most successful defenders of Holy Scriptures of our day."
Baptist Magazine.—" Dr. Leathes has set an example which all who are opposed
to the method and result of modem Biblical criticism would do well to follow. He
brings the question to a sound and religious test."
EYEE 8f 8F0TTI8W00DE,
Special 'STubtications. 3i
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S UBRARY-coniimted.
v/VO/V/x
Volume III.— Price 8s. 6cL
PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CMCM.
BY THE
Rev. J. J. LIAS, M.A.,
Chancellor of Llandaff Cathedral; formerly HvUean Lecturer ^ wnd. Preacher
at the Chapel Soi/al, Whitehall.
MB. LIAS, who is well known as a writer on theology and literature, in this
book offers a historical view of the two chief lines of criticism, which
have been directed against the Old and New Testaments, and points out that
the wave of adverse criticism, after failing when levelled against the Christian
Scriptures, the New Testament, has now for its object the disintegration of the
Hebrew Becords of the Old Testament. He brings to the task an easy style of
an unfettered mind ; takes his own line in discussing such subjects as Inspira-
tion, and tests the results of modern critical analysis in the light of good sense,
whilst passing under review the historical and prophetical writings of the Old
Testament.
On the whole, for a beginner in critical studies there are few books which
are so likely to put the student on the right line.
SOME OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.
The Church Times.— "We have seldom seen in so small a compass so admirable,
and withal temperate, exposition of the ingenious puzzles which German criticism has
been weaving under the guise of truth. We gratefully rec(^nize the value and
importance of this volume ; and a reverent investigation carried on, on the lines here
suggested, cannot fail to be profitable to the Biblical student."
The Record.— "The book is one that we can very cordially recommend ; it is both
reverent and scholarly, the discussions are temperate and logical, and the style
attractive. It is likely to do good service."
Church Quarterly Beview.— "Mr. Lias is entitled to the gratitude of churchmen."
The Churchman.— "Will prove of real and lasting service. We hope it will be
very widely circulated, as it deserves.**
Expository Times.—" Exceedingly useful as a storehouse of facts."
Spectator.— " Perhaps the most important chapter is that of 'The Evidence of
the Fsalms.' Mr. Lias knows that the controversy turns largely on the date of these."
The Baptist Magazine.—" Mr. Lias has a masterly chapter on the genuineness of
the Pentateuch, he islair and courteous in his methods, and knows that ai^ument must
be met with ai^ument."
The Christian World.—" Deserving of the highest praise ; we wish it a wide circu-
lation."
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.O.
$p«tiat publications.
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S UBR/iRY~eo»/i>med.
Volume IV.— 630 pag^e. I*rloe 6/-
SANCTUARY AND SACRIFICE:
A REPLY TO WELLHAUSEN.
REV. W. L. BAXTER, M,A., D.D.,
rOCOH ipBcUllj de««iied for Bible Htodenl
in Hebrew BoholuaEip [or Ita i^ipraciatii
atnngtheD an ordluur moer, with hia Knglisb
a. Its nuin aim is 1
„ IU7 mder, with hia Bnglisb Bible in Mb luuid.
In particular, tho dismembennent of the Mosaie leo^ation into three nntsgcnlaUc
ba quite >t
ihown (tsklnc SA^CTDABT kSD UCB^ICE at anusltuim feitt't to
it Tarluioe with ■ bur and oomprehennTe ■orve; of ths legal, historlcBl, and
Reoonii oi Hic OldTeitomenl.
ill« cxporiDg the Tiawa of Wellhaiuen (the ajpplsuded pioneer ot ' Hifjier
vciuuri "), tu Mltnor naka at erei? torn to'giTe a poiitlve presentation of Bible truth
on the tophn Innilled. Hera deitniotlta) ia not hia aim, but to inatraot and reaMnie.
A qwoial Belphlneaa oharaetcriaea hia miutractive mrveTs of the prophecy ol Eaekiel,
and of the ao^alled Priettl; Code.
boihh: opinionb.
The late Bigllt Hon. W, X. Olulstona,— "l^nlesa joor aearohing inqoii^nnbe
anawered, »tA Tour atalement* oontuted. wellhanaen'B charaoter. lltenu? and theo-
loffioal, ia destroyed, at Jeast for all those who hare profited by your *' " — *■ — "
Biihep EUlcott.— " Your counler-Btynment ia '
1 read the flrst paper. I wondured what answer you. ^^^-.., ^
Chnrch Qnarterl; aaview tOolober IBsa).— "The book n
stand its torrei the new theory is dutroyed. Dr. Baiter has not been anawsred.
and that simply because he ia unanswerable."
The Harnlng; Foat.— ° Dr. Baxter baa shown in hia reply a wide knowledge ol the
sabjeot diseuasM. and has rendered a powerful sopport to the opponents of that
doKmatio cHtlciszn of whlob Wellhaosen ia a prominent example."
Tlie DaUj Chronicle.—" Br. Baiter ia always interesting, and he certainly tries
to be fajr, Wellbauaen's answer will bo awaited with much interest,"
The Eecorf.— " Any reader who ahcatld work patiently ihrooRh Dr. Baiter'a book,
argument by argument, will Snd one sweeping piece of destniotive theorising (we
Tefiue to aay oritlciBm) after another toppling orer. This remarkable book la the most
»igorooa attempt which we have yet aeen to carry the war tclo the enemy's oonntiy."
The Bpeaker.— " An effective answer lo the Gennan Professor'B attack, and well
desems Che high praiae given it by Mr. Gladstone and Professor gayce."
The Omieb Tunes.— " We are sincerely grateful to the publishers. A book Uke
this will form a tdlyiiw point for those who had begun to Uiink that the posseuion ol
oomnxHi lenae was a tAlng to lie ashamed of, and unwavering tradition on any pctot
ongly reujinmend these who have not done ao M tcad.
Dtuary and Sacrifioe.'"
>.«. ,,.... .. „.« Jt ia an honest and serious diKnasion of Important
questions- Thoae who differ from Dr. Baiter may leam from bis oritioinna."
The Ketliodlat Times.— "By larthemost telling ehallenge lotliehigbsreriticiim."
Ths ftlmitive Hethodlat.— " Thow who have beeai unsettled in their foith in the
Old Testament by the apccniationa of sonre modem writing would do well to make the
aoquaiDtance of this volume."
EYRE 4- aPOTTJBWOODE.
Special l^ublicattons. 33
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S LIBRARY-^<'«/"'«.'^.
Volume V. IPrice 3s. 6d.
.*• /s/*<s/
HEZEKIAH AND HIS AGE.
BY THE
Rev. ROBERT SINKER, D.D.,
Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge,
''pHIS work compares the Bible history of this King with contemporary
JL records, and generally deals with his period. The Assyrian Inscriptions
of the period markedly confirm the Bible story ; they have shewn the
connection of events ; they have filled up gaps, and so imparted greater
coherence to the naiTative, clearing up difficulties where some have accused
the scriptural account of inaccuracy.
No period of early history is more full of suggestiveness. The intense
human pathos interwoven in the life of Hezekiah, and the Monuments which
survive of his handiwork in Jerusalem, impart to his reign a more than
ordinary interest to the modern reader, and particularly to those willing
to avail themselves of all fresh light thereon, as it arises.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. I CHAP.
L-INTRODUCTORY, REIGNS OF i YIL—» SICK UNTO DEATH," « I WILL
UZZIAH, JOTHAH, AHAZ. > ADD UNTO THY DAYS FIF-
II.-GHRONOLOGY. TEEN YEARS."
III.-THE SURROUNDING NATIONS. YIII.-FACE TO FACE WITH ASSYRIA.
lY.— THE OUTLOOK AT HEZEKIAH'S | IX.-THE GREAT INYASION.
ACCESSION. X.— THE GREAT DELIYERANCE.
XI.— CONCLUSION.
APPENDIX.-THE AUTHENTICITY OF
Y.~HEZEKIAH THE REFORMER. '
YL— THE WARRIOR, THE BUILDER,
THE WISE KING. I ISAIAH XL.-LXYL
soiycK opiNioisrs.
The Times.—" Worthy of deep consideration."
Idterary World.—" A careful attempt to collate the Bihlical history of the eighth
century B.C., not only with the prophetical and poetical books of the period, but with
the Assyrian Monuments."
Speaker. — " A luminous and, at the same time, critical exposition."
Sunday School Chronicle.— "A valuable contribution to the literature dealing with
that significant epoch iti Israelitish history and thoroughly interesting. Much light
from the Assyrian inscriptions is brought to bear upon the narrative."
Record.— "A portrait of Hezekiah, lucid and forcible."
Manchester Guardian.— " Shows that the Assyrian inscriptions have yielded a
most striking confirmation of the iilble story."
Irish Times.—" Holds a very high place, and will be everywhere prized."
Church Times.—" * Hezekiah arid His Age ' is a careful piece of work by one who
never allows himself to forget that he is handling the Word of God. It is an exceed-
ingly useful work : we earnestly commend it to the impartial reader."
Literature.-" Careful and trustworthy."
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G.
34
Special 'publications.
THE BIBLE STUDENTS UBRARY-cominued.
^\y\ ^\ /^ r\ r^- *»/-v./V'V*
» v/x/> / \yxxxxv/x '^ "Xx vxv rv/ * /■v/vx v/v/v»
Volume VI. (ILLUSTRATED.) I>rice 6/-
ABRAHAM AND HIS AGE.
BY
The Rev. HENRY GEORGE TOMKINS,
Late Vicar of Branscomhe, sometime Rector of St. PomVs, Exeter; Member of the
Committees of the Palestine and the Egypt Exploration Funds^ <&c., <0c.
^THE history of Abraham, " the father of the faithful," is here brought into
1 one continuous relation. The Monuments and Inscriptions of contem-
porary nations, here summarised to date, yield fresh confirmation of the Bible
narrative.
LIST' OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
I.-
-ROYAL HITTITE.
{Coloured Frontispiece.^
II.— NARAm-SIN, NEBUCHADREZ-
ZAR, AND KHAMMURABI.
III.— MARDUK-NADIN-AKHI.
lY.— GROUP OF HEADS TYPICAL
OF RACES.
AND
Y.-AMENEHHAT, KHAFRA,
TETA AND HIS WIFE.
YL— HYKSdS STATUARY.
YII.— TWO NEW HEADS, PROBABLY
HYKSdS, etc.
YIII.-HITTITES AND AHORITES.
IX.— ARABS, SYRIANS, etc.
X.-BABYLONIAN SEAL-CYLINDERS.
COnSTTElSTTS.
Chapter.
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ILLUS-
TRATIONS.
I.— INTRODUCTORY.
II.— ABRAHAM'S FATHERLAND.
III.— RELIGIOUS WORSHIP IN ABRA-
HAM'S TIME.
lY.-POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIFE
IN CHALDiEA.
Y.-MIGRATION TO KHARRAN.
YI.-THE LAND OF CANAAN.
YII.— THE PLACE OF SICHEM.
YIII.— THE CANAANITE.
Chapter.
IXT— ABRAHAM GOES DOWN TO
EGYPT.
X.-BGYPT IN THE TWELFTH DY-
NASTY.
XL— THE HYKSdS.
XII.— ABRAHAM RETURNS TO CA-
NAAN.
XIII.— ELAM AND ITS KINGS-KEDOR-
LA'OMER'S WAR AND DEFEAT.
XIY.-GENESIS HISTORICAL, NOT
MYTHICAL.
APPENDIX OF NOTES.
INDEX.
soivep: OFIJ^ION^S.
Church Times.—" Mr. Tomkins has devoted thirty years to the study of Biblical
ArchsBolojry, and he has brou>?ht together a large amount of material upon which he
has something interesting to say. He makes out a very good case."
Scotsman.— " A concise and compendious statement of the case for the older
orthodox doctrine as against sweeping sceptical researches. It is a learned and useful
manual."
Sunday School Chronicle.— "A book like this, wifh its plentiful archaeological
ilhi»<trations, will help to make Abraham's life more real to the reader."
Irish Times.—'* It sketches the background of the historical picture, in which the
patriarch is the centml figure."
Manchester Guardian. — " It is full of facts and enriched with well executed plates."
Church Times.—" In about 250 pages? the author brings a large amount of material
to illustrate the times covered by Genesis 12—14. No candid reader can deny that he
makes out a very good case for the historical accuracy of those chapters."
Morning Post.— "A work of evidential value answering some critical cavils, and
refuting some misconceptions. It is largely and excellently illustrated."
MYnE 4* 8F0TTI8W00DE,
Special "publications. 3d
THE BIBLE STUDENTS L\SR^RY-^ofi/hi»fci.
Volixme VII. (Illixstrated). 1E> rice 6/-.
THE BOOK OF DANIEL
FROM THE CHRISTIAN STANDPOINT.
With Essay on Allesred Historical Difficulties,
by the Editor of the '* Babylonian and
Oriental Record."
BY
JOHN KENNEDY, M.A., D.D.,
Honorary Professor, New College, London;
AUTHOR OF
" Tho Self Rovelation of Jesus Christ " ; " The Resurrection of
Jesus Christ an Historical Fact " ; '* The Unity
of Isaiah," &c.
THE personal testimonj of our Lord to the prophet Daniel
and his book is first discussed. After an examination
of corroborative testimony, the book itself is studied, chapter
by chapter, and all charges of historical inaccuracy are carefully
dealt with. The result is that the trustworthiness of the his-
torical portions is fully vindicated. A full and careful Index
has been added, and will greatly aid the reader in the study
of the book.
The Volume is Illustrated with Photographic Repro-
ductions of some Ancient Monuments.
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E,C.
86 Special l^ublicafions.
THE BIBLE STUDENT'S UBRARY- continued,
V/\/V/ v/X/ vy v/ vy\/\y v/ v/ \/ »-/ v/ \/ v/ \/ \/ vy'v/ v/ \y v/ \/ *> vy v/ v/ vy * * v \-
Volume VIII. I^rice e/-.
Age of the Maccabees
With Special Reference to the Religfious Literature
of the Period.
IJY
A. V;^. STPtEAISTE, r).!)..
Fellow, and formerly Theological Lecturer, of Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge.
A FTER sketching the Post-Captivity Period of Jewish History
J^ from the date of the Return with special reference to
Maccabean times, the writer deals with the literary, political, and
religious elements in the life of the nation during the period. He
discusses in detail the general features of the religious literature of
the Jews, from the commencement of the Greek period to the
accession of Herod the Great (37 B.C.), and then proceeds to
consider the individual characteristics of the various works
(Apocryphal and other) which naturally fall within the above-
mentioned plan. A special chapter is given to the origin and
characteristics of the Septuagint. He also treats separately of
various questions which the period involves, such as the position
of the Assideans, the existence of Maccabean Psalms, and the
date of the Book of Daniel.
other Vohnnes in I^reparatlon,
JEYRE 4* 8P0TTI8W00DE,
Special 'publications. 37
THE
STDDENT'S HANDBOOK to the PSALMS.
BY THE LATE
Rev. J. SKULI^PJE:, !>.!>.,
Fellow of Christ College^ Cambridge,
SECOND EDITION, WITH MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR,
BY THE
Rev. ROBERT SINKER, U.U.,
Librarian of Trinity College,
Small 4to., cloth, bevelled boards, gilt edges, price 12/-
THIS Handbook aims at treating the poetry and theology of the Psalms
in such a manner as shall benefit not only the student of the Hebrew,
but also the English reader who takes an intelligent interest in the con-
troversies of the day, and finds in the Psalms the daily food of devotion.
The work will be of use to students for theological degrees, and to all
who adopt the purpose of St. Paul : " / will sing with the spirit, and I will
sing with the understa'uding also'' — 1 Cor. 14. 15.
soMiE OFiisrioJsrs.
The Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, the Rev. Robert Sinker,
D.D.y writes :—"/ ^rM«^ the new Edition (Student's Handbook to the Psalms) will
have a very wide circulation. It deserves it."
The Times. — ^"Very useful to students and devout readers."
The Church Times.—" We thoroughly commeud it to our readers."
Literary World. — " Dr. Sharpe has taken infinite pains to place his subject
as clearly as possible before the English reader."
Record. — "Dr. Sharpe is to be warmly thanked for his book. It is good to flnri
a scholar referring to the 'old paths' and confessing that 'continued study ever
demonstrates more fully' their superiority."
The Christian World.— "It is full of useful information."
Sunday School Chronicle.— " The book is one which Sunday School Teachers
will find exceptionally useful."
The Irish Times.— "This handbook to the Psalms will be invaluable to every
earnest Christian student. Dr. Sharpe lays the Christian communities under an
obligation everywhere."
The Scotsman.— "The book will be highly prized by thote who stand in the
'old paths' and is one which those who are seeking to advance will find worthy of
their consideration."
Western Morning News.— "A scholarly and valuable book, which should be
found in all theological libraries."
GREAT NEW STREET, LONDONy E.G.
38 Special publications.
I^rice S/-
NEW CHEAP EDITION.
THE STANDARD BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 1662.
THE ANNEXED BOOK IN TYPE,
\^s ^\ 'WVyN ^<^^^^N/N/s^ ^>^ys^^ r^^^y^*. /^ /\yv/« 0
An exact copy, in type, of the Manuscript Book of Common Prayer which
was awnexed, as the authoritative record, to the Act of Uniformity of 1662.
In 1891, by special pennission of the House of Lords (now the custodians
of the MS. Book), H.M. Printers produced by photolithography a facsimile
of this "Annexed Book," but the work was necessarily too costly for the
majority of Churchmen.
To the Type-Edition are appended (I.) A List of Erasures and Corrections
in the MS. Book. (II.) A Collation of the MS. Book with " the Convocation
Copy " from which it purports to be fairly written. (III.) A Collation with the
Authorised Version of Quotations therefrom inserted in the Annexed Book.
Royal 8vo., Dark Blue Cloth, Red Burnished Edges.
NEW CHEAP EDITION.
Clotli, Hed Edges. I^rice
THE HISTORICAL PRAYER BOOK :
BEING THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER WITH THE SOURCE OF EACH COMPONENT
PART AND THE DATE AT WHICH IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE
BOOK STATED IN THE MARGIN.
Edited by the Rev. JAMES CORNFORD, M.A.,
Lecturer at the London College of Divinity,
SPECIAIjIiY PBEPARED FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND ALL.
MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
soivtir: oFiNioisrs.
Guardian.— "A most useful and scholarly work.'*
Churcli Times.— "A useful book for those interested in the sources of our present
Prayer Book."
Speaker.—" Scholarly, pithy, exact."
Scotsman.— "Welcome to everyone interested in the history of the Anglican
liturgy."
Commended also by The Times, <S:c„ dsc.
EYEE ^ 8P0TTI8W00DE,
Special 'Sfubltcafions. 39
SIXTEENTH EDITION.
A. complete JRecenslon of tJie original matter, with additions and
fuller explanations w'lere necessary,
Queen's Printers' Teacher's Prayer Book:
BEING THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, with INTRODUCTIONS,
ANALYSES, NOTES, and a COMMENTARY UPON THE PSALTER,
BY THE
Right Rev. ALFRED BARRY, T>.T>ni
Canon of Windsor,
Late Bishop of Sydney and Metropolitan Primate of Australia and Tasmania;
AND A
GLOSSARY by the Rev. A. L. MAYHEW, M.A.
The ** ®eacl)cr'* lintijev f^aak,** now so well known, is the only-
work of the kind published in a popular form at popular prices. It is issued
in two sizes, 24mo., and in various bindings {see School Editioii and Prices
below).
In the arrangement of the work the most simple plan has been adopted,
the Prayer Book and its explanation being iuterpaged throughout; and the
work of Dr. Barky as Editor makes it of such standard value as to entitle it
to rank as a companion volume to the Queen's Printers' "Teacher's Bibles."
SPECIMEN OF TYPE,
24mo.
And Jesus went Into the temple tj^^ Xq:,^^^ of this Sunday
of God, andciiHt out all them that (taken again from the Epistle)
sold and bought in the temple : ig addressed to thought rather
''4mo
EDITION.
s. d.
Cloth boards, red ed^es 3 6
Leather, limp, gilt edges . . . . 4 6
Leather, round corners, red under gold edges, and gold roll inside cover . . 5 6
Polished Persian Calf, limp, round corners, red under gold edges, and gold
roll inside cover 5 8
SCHOOL EDITION (without Commentary on Psalter and Glossary) price. 2/6.
Gn^AT NUW 8TEEE1\ LONDON, E,C.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11